Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Prescription Charges

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage increase in prescription charges since May 1979.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what method he intends to determine the revision of prescription charges.

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he plans to revise prescription charges.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): Prescription charges will be increased annually in line with costs. This is a sensible way of running things as compared with the fits and starts of the previous Government. The prescription charge in May 1979 was 20p, as set in April 1971, when it was 27 per cent. of the average cost per item. It is now £1, 31 per cent. of the average cost per item.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that he has given a peculiarly disingenuous answer? How does he square an astronomic increase of 500 per cent. with his description of a challenge by the Labour Party at the last general election to the effect that these charges would increase as a Labour lie? Does this not show that the whole prospectus put before the electorate by his party was completely bogus?

Dr. Vaughan: This is an increase in charge which is an adjustment of charge to cost"—[Official Report, 21 July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1393.]
Those are not my words but the words of the Secretary of State for Social Services in 1969, the late Richard Crossman. The percentage increase in charges since 1979 is 400 per cent. compared with a percentage increase in the cost of prescriptions, since the 20p prescription was introduced, of 335 per cent. I cannot see from where the hon. Gentleman ris his figures.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Powell: Is the Department still adhering to what is no more than a rule of thumb method of charging the patient one-third of the total cost of medication through prescription charges? If so, is it the Government's intention to raise the prescription charge to £1·30 in the autumn?

Dr. Vaughan: I have already said that the charges will be increased annually in line with costs. The present average cost of a prescription is £3·22. The sum of £1 seems a reasonable contribution towards this amount.

Mr. Dixon: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the positive campaign to persuade doctors to prescribe cheaper drugs, the cost of a substantial percentage of drugs has fallen well below the £1 prescription charge? Does, he further agree that this has led to many chemists not submitting prescriptions for payment?

Dr. Vaughan: It is too early to see the effects of the recent increases. The total number of prescriptions has fallen. In 1979 the figure was 304·6 million. It is now 303·3 million. I would have thought that the Labour Party, which first introduced and later reintroduced charges, would have been pleased to see this development. It shows a wiser use of money.

Mr. McCrindle: With all these percentages flying around, will the Minister say what percentage of the total population does not pay prescription charges and how this compares with 1979?

Dr.Vaughan: Thirty-five per cent. do not pay prescription charges. Sixty-five per cent. have exemptions and another 5 per cent., making 70 per cent., use season tickets, and I am pleased to say that the use of these has increased considerably.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that he invokes a new principle in tying a charge to the rate of inflation? Will he give an assurance that no other Health Service charges will be linked to the rate of inflation?

Dr. Vaughan: No. do not think that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the matter correctly. We are tying the prescription charge to the actual cost of drugs which are dispensed.

Mr. Marlow: As the Government, or, in other words, the taxpayers, are contributing, in real terms, a massive £150 million more to health and social services than did the Labour Government, is it not reasonable that those who can afford to pay prescription charges should do just that?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, it is reasonable. We have increased the overall amount of money available. Drugs are costing about £1,000 million a year. I should have thought that the majority of people would be pleased to contribute to such costs.

Mr. Terry Davis: Now that the Minister has admitted that the Government have increased prescription charges by 400 per cent., will he explain why the Government chose to increase this charge by a larger percentage than any other charge, licence, tax or Excise duty?

Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept that. We are adjusting the costs in direct proportion to the amount of money being spent on drugs. I believe that to be reasonable

Pharmaceuticals (Manufacture)

Miss Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the urgent report which he requested on why the manufacture of pharmaceuticals has not ceased at eight hospitals in England.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Yes, Sir. It shows that seven of the eight hospitals have now ceased manufacture completely. The other one is continuing at a much reduced level.

Miss Richardson: May we have an assurance that the hospital which is continuing to manufacture at a reduced level will be monitored? Why is that hospital being allowed to continue to manufacture? How will the Secretary of State ensure that the other seven hospitals really cease to manufacture? What plans has he to monitor them?

Mr. Jenkin: The hospital which is continuing to manufacture is King's College hospital. It is making a small range of terminally sterilised products which are not available commercially. The hospital has been inspected again quite recently. The inspector is satisfied that the reduced level of manufacture involves no present danger to patients, having regard to the quality and dedication of the staff in the pharmacy department. We shall keep an eye on the other hospitals. The hospitals to which the original instructions went have ceased to manufacture in accordance with the inspector's recommendation.

Mr. Terry Davis: What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that in future health authorities take action without delay on recommendations from the Medicines Inspectorate?

Mr. Jenkin: Now that the matter has been brought to the attention of health authorities, I should be surprised if any health authority ignored a recommendation from the inspectorate. In addition, when we have developed, as we now nearly have, a new system of costing so that proper comparisons can be made of costs of manufacture in hospitals and costs of buying in, I shall expect all health authorities to examine carefully the comparative economics. I should expect them to buy in from outside whenever that is economical.

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current value of the standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefits, expressed as a percentage of average industrial earnings; and how this percentage figure compares with the figure in March 1979.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefit is 25·2 per cent. of the estimated average net earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in January 1981, the latest date for which figures are available; the comparable figure in March 1979 was 25·6 per cent.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the situation will become much worse when the earnings-related supplement is abolished? What will he do to counteract that appalling decision?

Mr. Rossi: It is, of course, appreciated that when the earnings-related supplement is abolished, on average there will be a difference of about £9 a week for those who have been receiving it. However, for those who would suffer hardship, the supplementary benefit safety net is always available.

Mr. Marlow: As there is a growing reluctance among some young people to stay on at school or in further

education generally or to go on to the work experience scheme because of the relatively high level for young people of supplementary benefit and unemployment pay, will my hon. Friend look into the situation with view, perhaps, to reducing supplementary benefit and unemployment pay for young people and increasing the amount of money available to those on the work experience scheme on a nil-zero sum basis?

Mr. Rossi: The whole question of young people is being examined by the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister intend to maintain the ratio between unemployment and sickness benefits and average earnings? If he does not, why not?

Mr. Rossi: That matter is also being examined.

District Health Authorities

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that regional health authorities consult fully with the trade unions concerned before making firm proposals for the creation of new district health authorities.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is genuine concern in the trade unions about the implications for employment of the new district health authorities? Will he guarantee that the trade unions will be fully involved in the discussions leading to their establishment?

Mr. Jenkin: The trade unions were among the bodies consulted by the regions on the proposed new structure of district health authorities. I am fully satisfied about that. Of course the unions will be consulted again about the drawing up of orders transferring employment from the existing authorities to the new district health authorities. I make that absolutely clear.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the deafness of the Wessex regional health authority to the consultation process has been answered by the patience, understanding and common sense of the Minister for Health with his intervention concerning the Grove? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me and every body locally, including general practitioners, in thanking the Minister for what has happened? Will he ensure that the new district health authorities referred to in the question are more responsive to local opinion on medical matters than was the case in that instance?

Mr. Jenkin: I am glowing in the blushes of the Minister for Health. I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to him. One of the central purposes of the reorganisation in which we are currently engaged is to have smaller, more local, authorities which will be more responsive to local opinion about local health services. That primarily is what we are out to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend believes that we are setting about it in the right way.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As we have had the enunciation of a new theory this afternoon, namely, that in future patients will be charged in relation to cost, irrespective of whether they need expensive drugs, will the Secretary of State follow that theory all the way along the line? Will he provide the amount needed for reorganisation in line with inflation? The unions would be happy to learn that their wages are to be increased in exactly the same way.

Mr. Jenkin: I assure the hon. Lady that this Government have no intention of following the example of their predecessors, who preferred to cut capital spending by two-thirds rather than put up prescription charges. We have done the opposite.

Death Grant

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what level the death grant would have to be raised to preserve its real value as at 1 April 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Based on the movement of the General Index of Retail Prices up to February 1981, the latest month for which a figure is available, the standard £30 grant would need to be increased to about £115 to restore the value that it had in April 1970.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister realise that the cost of medical certification required for cremation is now about the same as, and in certain circumstances exceeds, the value of the death grant? Bearing that in mind, and noting the enormous anxiety felt by elderly people as they watch the value of their pensions and savings diminish and the cost of funerals mount, will the Government reconsider the matter urgently?

Mrs. Chalker: The cost of cremation certificates is being reconsidered along with other matters related to the death grant. I remind the hon. Gentleman that pensioners received a 19½ per cent. increase in November 1979 and a 16½ per cent. increase last November. Many pensioners are not making the type of noises that we hear so often from the Opposition.

Mr. Freud: As the Secretary of State has told the House that 27 per cent. of the cost seems a reasonable proportion, will he take that on board when he considers the death grant?

Mrs. Chalker: Hon. Members know that the whole of the death grant is being fully reviewed. When that review is completed we can come to the House with a statement. In the meantime, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is necessarily the right answer to the problem.

Mr. McCrindle: Is any consideration being given under that review to increasing the death grant to the £115 to which my hon. Friend referred, but paying it only where the next of kin of the deceased is in receipt of social security benefits?

Mrs. Chalker: That, and many other suggestions, have been made to the Government. They are all being considered.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that 1 million people signed a petition and made noises about the issue because they felt so strongly about it? Will the Minister refute the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) that the Government are considering abolishing the death grant? Is she aware that that would be a slap in the face for those 1 million people?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the Dignity in Death Alliance deputation and of the million signatures on the petition. It would cost over £86 million to extend the death grant to everyone. However, I can add nothing further, until we have reached a final conclusion on the death grant.

Regional Health Authorities (Financial Allocations)

Mr. Robert C. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from regional health authorities regarding their financial allocations for 1981–82.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: None, Sir.

Mr. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that of the 1·4 per cent. gross level increase in allocation at least half will be taken up by population change demands? With cash limits set for inflation at 11 per cent. and wage increases at 6 per cent., is that not wishful thinking, bearing in mind the effects of the Budget?

Mr. Jenkin: The proposed spending in 1981–82 on the National Health Service follows exactly the projections that were established by our predecessors in their last public expenditure White Paper—that is in real terms, making allowance for the rate of inflation. Although the average for the country as a whole of allocations to health authorities is about 1·6 per cent., the allocation to the Northern region is 2·3 per cent., representing a growth that is nearly five times higher than the growth, for instance, in the Thames region, which serves London and the Home Counties.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Do those allocations take account of the Secretary of State's recent proposal to charge people from abroad for the use of NHS services? If not, when does he intend to take note of that allocation?

Mr. Jenkin: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the pressure that he has maintained to ensure the introduction of that scheme. The money that will be earned in that way by the health authorities will be additional to the money that is allocated to them by the Government.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Secretary of State explain how he can make a sensible decision about the allocation of money to regional health authorities when, according to the answers that he has given to parliamentary questions, he does not know the precise financial circumstances of the area health authorities in the previous year?

Mr. Jenkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocations are made according to the formula evolved by the resource allocation working party, known as the RAWP formula. That formula has recently been revised and refined, and now provides a good basis on which to allocate money to different parts of the country on the basis of need. In the final analysis, of course, a judgment is required; it cannot be an automatic process. However, in forming that judgment, Ministers base their assessments on a wide range of factors, and the results are the figures that were published earlier this year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I appreciate the detailed response that my right hon. Friend gave to the original question. Will he say what representations he has received from regional health authorities about the need to increase the number of consultants in the regions to provide a more adequate service for patients? What was his response to the regional health authorities that made such representations?

Mr. Jenkin: There are two sides to my hon. Friend's question. First, health authorities are never slow to say that they could spend more money than they receive. The other concerns the matter which the Select Committee—of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member—is


considering, namely, the balance between consultants and training grade doctors. We await with interest the findings of the Select Committee. I know that the NHS would like to have a better balance between the two grades of doctor.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Secretary of State clarify the figures? Is it not true that the increase of 1·6 per cent. includes the savings of £25 million which he imposed on health authorities? Is it not true that the £25 million is really £35 million at actual prices? Is not the Secretary of State counting minuses as pluses?

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, the 1·6 per cent. is after taking account of the savings, which were £25 million at survey prices, and are likely to be between £35 million and £36 million at outturn prices this year. Bearing in mind that that relates to a programme involving a total spending of more than £10,000 million, it is surely reasonable to expect the Health Service authorities to be able to find savings through higher efficiency that will amount to that small proportion of their total spending. That is what I seek, and that is what the regional health authorities have taken on board. I am quite confident that they will be able to achieve that saving.

Disadvantaged Persons (Church of England and Salvation Army)

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the Church of England and the Salvation Army concerning their help for the disadvantaged.

The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir George Young): Neither has requested a discussion, but I am always willing to consider those aspects of their work which fall within the Department's responsibilities and for which I have great admiration. Officials have been in touch with the Church of England Children's Society, the Church Army and the Salvation Army on specific projects.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that both the Church of England and the Salvation Army recently joined forces to condemn the Government's policy of major cuts in support for hostel housing accommodation for single homeless people? Is he aware of their concern that his Department and the Department of the Environment are sharply reversing the policy of his predecessor which was to seek closure of the massive, out-of-date and disgracefully inadequate single person hostels provided by his Department by means of increased provision at local authority and housing association level to such organisations? What does he intend to do about that?

Sir George Young: I have seen the joint statement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and it is not in the strident tone he attributes to it. The Department of the Environment has made available £12 million as a special allocation for hostels. Both the organisations that he mentioned are eligible to apply to the DOE for grants. On the issue of size, I sympathise with the view that large institutions do not provide the right environment for people who are homeless, many of whom would prefer smaller institutions or homes where there is an opportunity for them to have an independent identity and where there is some privacy. I welcome any move to develop alternative provision to replace such outdated institutions.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Minister aware that the meeting chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury to launch the

joint appeal by the Church Army and Salvation Army for their hostels, far from condemning the Government's action, paid particular tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction for the help that he had given to hostels?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has confirmed what I said earlier, that the joint statement was not couched in the tones attributed to it by the right hon. Gentleman.

Child Benefit

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can now make a statement on the future system of child benefit payments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to announce his decision upon the arrangements for paying child benefit weekly or monthly.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am still considering the comments received on the Government's proposals in Cmnd. 8106, and I hope to announce the Government's decision on all the proposals shortly after the Easter Recess.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will no longer be possible to make a statement before Easter? Will there be a gap between any Government decision to change the system and the introduction of that change? If the Government go ahead with the four-week proposal, will he assure the House and the mothers of this country that the £50 million saved by the cash flow effects on his Department will be put to increased child benefits?

Mr. Jenkin: At this stage I do not want to commit myself to a precise time, because clearly that would depend on what changes, if any, we propose. Any effect on total public expenditure occasioned by less frequent payments of child benefit—the hon. Gentleman rightly used the term "cash flow"—will affect the cash flow in moving expenditure from this year to next. The resulting reduction in public expenditure this year is a reduction which the Chancellor must have if he is to meet his Budget targets.

Mr. Bennett: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the most important people to consult are the mothers who draw the benefit? Would it not be better to guarantee that any mother who wanted to draw her benefit weekly could continue to do so, even if the Government wished to persuade some people to change to a monthly system?

Mr. Jenkin: We have received representations about the White Paper from 550 individuals, organisations and local authorities, many of them representing mothers and particularly mothers in need. I am of course aware that strong views have been expressed to the effect that weekly payment of child benefit should be retained for those who want it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am taking those representations seriously, and we hope to announce our decision after Easter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of child benefit is the most important factor? Does he accept that, although the increase was good, we expect even more? If the survey shows that the majority of mothers wish to draw child benefit four-weekly, does he accept that allowing for the choice will probably achieve most of what the Government are after?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's initial remarks. The Opposition's wish to have it both ways is puzzling. They must decide whether the amount of child benefit is reasonable and should be received regularly or is insignificant, in which case why should it not be paid less frequently? The Government are considering my hon. Friend's second point.

Mr. Freeson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite the recent increases, child benefit is 40 per cent. a week lower in real terms than when his Government came to office? Should not his most urgent priority be to bring it back to that level?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot confirm the right hon. Gentleman's figures. The increase announced in the Budget will maintain child benefit at last November's level, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave to the House.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that child benefit is more valuable to people on higher rather than lower incomes because it is tax-free? Has he considered making it taxable? If it was, what would the yield be?

Mr. Jenkin: Child benefit replaced child tax allowances, which had the same impact.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: More so.

Mr. Jenkin: Indeed. Child benefit is in a sense a child tax credit and is a tax-free sum paid to mothers, whatever their income. I have doubts about any recommendation to make the benefit means-tested. It would be strange to bring a benefit that has replaced tax allowances into taxation.

Smoking and Alcohol Consumption

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate how much illnesses related to smoking and to alcohol abuse cost the National Health Service in the last year for which figures are available.

Sir George Young: Estimates by the Department suggest that the annual cost to the NHS in England and Wales of smoking-related diseases is about £115 million and of alcohol-related diseases between £50 million and £69 million, both at November 1979 prices. These figures of course exclude the other costs which these illnesses inflict on society.

Dr. Mawhinney: What must be the cost to the NHS before my hon. Friend will consider imposing a direct charge on patients who bring such illnesses on themselves?

Sir George Young: At first sight, my hon. Friend's suggestion has the advantage of equity and logic, but there are difficulties. How does one prove causality in a man with high blood pressure who drinks and smokes? How does one prove that the bad habit is the main cause of the illness and not merely contributory? There are also philosophical problems. Which bad habits does my hon. Friend suggest we should select? What about accidents in the home, or glue sniffing? What about dangerous habits such as pot-holing, or even bicycling? With all the problems, we have no plans to introduce new charges.

Mr. Ron Lewis: With the ever-increasing number of alcoholics, and the apparent increase in under-age drinking, will the hon. Gentleman follow the example of one of his predecessors in banning cigarette advertising and ban advertisements for alcoholic beverages?

Sir George Young: No. Smoking and drinking are different. The vast majority who drink do so in moderation and do not harm themselves. Regrettably, the same is not true of smokers.

Sir William Clark: In view of the cost to the NHS of smoking and drinking, does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to include the cost of smoking and drinking in the RPI?

Sir George Young: I should welcome the opportunity to give my views to the House, but I have no ministerial responsibility for the matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: As official statistics show that the Government are driving more and more people to drink, has the Department estimated the deterrent effect of the swingeing tobacco and alcohol price increases in the Budget?

Sir George Young: The estimates are, of necessity, speculative. Initial estimates indicate a possible reduction of about 8 per cent. in the sale of tobacco. I have no figures on the possible impact of the increase on the consumption of alcohol, but I believe that it will maintain the relative price of alcohol to other goods and services. One cannot make a case for alcohol becoming relatively cheaper.

St. George's Hospital Site

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what payment to the National Health Service he expects from the sale of the St. George's hospital site.

Dr. Vaughan: No figure can be given at present.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the Minister aware that many Londoners believe that publicly owned land should be retained for public usage, and that if the land is sold for a song because of Government policy there will be a public outcry? Therefore, when it is sold for its proper value, which must be fabulous, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the money is spent on providing better equipment for our under-equipped hospitals?

Dr. Vaughan: We understand the point, but we have made it clear that there is no further NHS requirement for the site. It is of advantage to the Health Service to raise as much money as possible from our part of the site, which could be used to the benefit of health care.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why do the Minister's commercial instincts work only one way? Why cannot the NHS benefit economically from the sale of the site? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that Grosvenor Estates will walk away with an enormous profit and the taxpayer will gain no benefit?

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Lady has no grounds for saying that. Only a small section of the site belongs to the NHS.

Mr. Freud: If a hospital, some of the cost of which was raised by the community, is sold, what proportion of the revenue of the sale will be returned to the community, and to whom will it go?

Dr. Vaughan: I should be glad to give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer in writing. It is our general view that regional, area and local community health authorities should benefit as locally as possible. As much money as possible should go back to the local health service.

Oxford Regional Health Authority

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis the revenue allocation to the Oxford regional health authority for 1981·82 was calculated.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Revenue allocations are made on the basis of the recommendations in the report of the resource allocation working party, which provides a broad assessment of relative health care need between different populations.

Mr. Morris: As the needs include population movement, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure a fair distribution between the Northamptonshire AHA, with the vast population increase there, and the Oxford AHA, which is vehemently overspending?

Mr. Jenkin: Allocation to individual AHAs is a matter for the regional health authority, but special account is taken of the needs of new towns. For the past four years the Oxford region has received a revenue addition specifically to help the development of services in the new towns of Northampton and Milton Keynes. For 1981–82 the sum is £784,000, to be shared between new town developments.

Mr. Skinner: Should not the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) that he had better not make comparisons between his own area in Northamptonshire and, for example, the Derby authority, which might lead to the closure of the neurology department, or with the Sheffield health authority, which would result in the closure of a spina bifida hospital for young children, which would mean that the Government are prepared to act as terrorists?

Mr. Jenkin: I point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Trent regional health authority had built into its allocations this year a percentage growth that was five times that of the four Thames regions and as high as that of any other region in the country. The hon. Gentleman's extravagant language is totally out of place.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hospitals and Charities (Fund-raising)

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to ensure that National Health Service hospitals do not take advantage of their position to the detriment of fund-raising activities of charities which provide health care as part of their services.

Dr. Vaughan: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long interest and involvement in charitable work, including the cottage homes. This is part of this country's unique record of voluntary and charitable work. The new power in the

Health Services Act 1980 is intended to continue this, but we shall keep a close watch on its effect to ensure that the voluntary efforts are not undermined in any way.

Mr. Cockeram: I welcome the ability of the NHS to tap new sources of funds, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be counter-productive if charities such as the retail trades cottage homes in Derby, Mill Hill and Scotland were to find their work of total care for the elderly, including health care, undermined by the new measure?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We shall keep a watch to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lymington hospital appeal in my constituency, which set out to raise £150,000, has now raised over £275,000? I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), but will my hon. Friend the Minister encourage the trend whereby the public are prepared to contribute from their own pockets towards the provision of public facilities?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes. I cannot welcome too strongly what my hon. Friend has said. In going around the country I am amazed at the immense effort that goes into raising voluntary funds for the Health Service and the great deal of good that this does.

Social Security Bill

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on clause 1 of the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations has he received on clause 1 of the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Rossi: We have received about 120 such representations, from hon. Members, organisations and individual members of the public.

Mr. Stallard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that amounts to representations from virtually all the pensioners in Britain? Does he acknowledge that they are all agreed that the charge levelled by the Government that pensioners and other beneficiaries have been over-provided for is a wicked travesty of the facts, as revealed in any study of the pensioners' price index and other statistics? Will he give the House an assurance that during the passage of the Social Security Bill, which is now in Committee, he will seek to introduce an amendment that makes provision to pay back any shortfall that might arise in future?

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that representations have been received from various pensioner organisations. They are all concerned with the 1 per cent. clawback. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given an undertaking on future shortfalls. There is provision in existing legislation to deal with them should they arise.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that heating costs form a large part of the pensioners' budget? As the cost of electricity and gas is increasing by more than twice the increase in pensions, will he tell me how an ordinary pensioner with no income other than the basic pension will be able to pay the additional heating costs?

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the uprating contains an element of forecast of future increases. The expected increases in fuel costs were taken into account when calculating the uprating of 10 per cent., which will come into effect in November.

Retirement Pension

Dr. McDonald: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the value of retirement pensions for a single person and a married couple, respectively, had they been increased in line with earnings in 1978 and 1979 and prices in 1980.

Mr. Rossi: In November 1978 the standard weekly rates of basic retirement pensions would have been £19·85 for a single person and £31·75 for a married couple. In November 1979 the rates would have been £23·65 and £37·80 and in November 1980, £27·30 and £43·65.

Dr. McDonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that through the Government's legislative changes in social security arrangements pensioners are beginning to realise more and more the extent to which they have been done out of their rightful increases by the Government? They are aware that their pensions are failing to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. Many pensioners are quite desperate because they do not know how they will meet the increases in rents and in fuel and food prices throughout the coming year.

Mr. Rossi: The changes made in the Social Security Act 1980 broke the link between pensions and increases in earnings. We were pledged—and we have maintained our pledge—to keep pensions in line with rises in prices. We have the commitment that when Britain returns to prosperity the pensioners will share in that prosperity.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Economic Strategy

Mr. Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether she has had any recent consultations with the National Economic Development Council about the Government's economic strategy.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I took the chair at the NEDC on 4 February. Three items were discussed: industrial trends, overseas capital projects and a report on the diesel engines industry.

Mr. Renton: How can trade union leaders expect to be taken seriously as partners in discussing Britain's economic future if they refuse to attend tomorrow's NEDC meeting because of the Civil Service picket line? Will my right hon. Friend impress on the six senior trade union representatives the folly of such action? Will she ensure that the meeting takes place in any event?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the trade union representatives on the NEDC have said that they will not attend tomorrow's meeting because they do not wish to cross the Civil Service picket line. Nevertheless, the meeting will go ahead. I very much regret that there will not be trade union representation there, as there are such important matters on the agenda as industrial energy pricing and regional industrial issues.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that one reason why the trade union leaders will not cross the picket

line that is part of the Civil Service pay dispute is that in her election campaign she told civil servants, half of whom receive less than the average wage, and many of whom receive wages below the poverty wage line, that if they voted for free collective bargaining, Mrs. Thatcher and the rest they would be able to get all the wages possible in line with those paid to people engaging in free collective bargaining outside the Civil Service?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair to other hon. Members who wish to ask questions——

Mr. Skinner: I have nearly finished.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better nearly finish quickly.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that civil servants are asking her and the rest of her tawdry rotten Government to carry out their mandate? That is all that they are asking. That is why there are picket lines. and that is why——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that since his Government were in power civil servants——

Mr. Skinner: That is nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not only bad parliamentary manners, but sheer bad manners to keep shouting while others are trying to speak in the Chamber. He should try to control himself.

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will leave his helpful point of order until the end of Question Time.

The Prime Minister: Since the Government of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were in power civil servants have been awarded pay increases of 50 per cent. over the last two years, on top of which they have been offered another 7 per cent., which most of us believe is a good deal for those in the public sector. Many in the private sector would wish to have those levels of pay.

Later——

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the start of Prime Minister's questions you had cause to remonstrate with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). From a sedentary position the hon. Member addressed a highly offensive remark to you. My point of order is to ask whether it would be in order for you now to ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark, without having to repeat it in the House——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are times when am mercifully spared from hearing what is said by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I did not hear the remark.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) did.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, perhaps there is better hearing on the other side of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am content to leave the matter where it is.

Engagements

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a reception given by the Indian high commissioner.

Mr. Heddle: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of public sector unions as well as the Civil Service unions? Does she agree that those who are responsible for providing essential services for the nation and who wish to achieve pay settlements in excess of those that are freely entered into in the private sector can do so only by entering into binding no-strike agreements?

The Prime Minister: With regard to Civil Service pay, 7 per cent. already exceeds what a number of people in the private sector will receive. With regard to the nationalised industries, there is undoubtedly great difficulty in applying the same disciplines to them as to companies that suffer from bankruptcy if they do not achieve competitive prices in the market. Most of us think that people should be paid for their work, and not for no-strike agreements. It is always possible to consider that. I would add one thing. Those whose service is vital to the well-being of the citizens should stick at their jobs.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many trade union leaders tell us that even when they visit the House and attend meetings in her presence they are to be seen and not heard? What is the difficulty about their not crossing the picket line in the Civil Service dispute? It is a waste of time for them to see her at any time these days.

The Prime Minister: What absolute nonsense the hon. Member talks. When I take the chair at the NEDC the trade unions are vocal in what they wish to say. When about 40 of them come to see me, the difficulty is to persuade 37 of them to say anything at all.

Sir Paul Bryan: Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate those responsible for securing the biggest export order in British history—the order for the Castle Peak B station in Hong Kong? Will she say what that means to this country in terms of employment? Will she tell the British industrialists that that order, following the earlier vast order for the Castle Peak A station and the equipment for the mass transit railway, shows what opportunities there are in Hong Kong for British business men?

The Prime Minister: The order is worth about £550 million. It is a major success for British industry, working with the Government, to have achieved the order for Castle Peak B, in addition to Castle Peak A. The order will provide between 5,000 and 7,000 jobs over the next seven years, many of them in assisted areas where they are most needed. All concerned are to be thoroughly congratulated on taking advantage of those opportunities.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I might revert to the answers given by the right hon. Lady about the Civil Service dispute. If she is so certain of the Government's case, why are she and her colleagues so afraid to refer the matter to arbitration, as the unions have asked? Has the right hon.

Lady had time today to study the latest report of the CBI on the state of the British economy? Does that report accord with her view and that spread by her fellow Ministers that there is increasing evidence of an upturn in the economy?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Government have a duty to decide what the taxpayer can afford to pay public servants. The more money that goes on current expenditure, the less there is for capital expenditure. The more that goes on current expenditure, the more unemployment is created, because that money could otherwise be spent on vital capital projects. I hope that those in the Civil Service will remember that.
I have seen the CBI survey. The indications of an upturn to which the right hon. Gentleman referred come in the main from other forecasters and from the Central Statistical Office. In part they come from some of the CBI indicators, but otherwise they come from the independent indicators published by the Central Statistical Office, which gives the leading indicators, both long and short term.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us who are those other forecasters? Will she tell us specifically whether she agrees with the CBI's judgment, in its latest report, that the Budget reduced demand and increased business costs? Does she not think that that is a plain statement of fact?

The Prime Minister: The answer to that last question is "No, Sir". There was a good deal in the last Budget to relieve industry. There was a reduction in interest rates of a further 2 per cent. which is worth about £700 million over a year. There was a generous scheme for stock relief, and further relief for big users of fuel in industry. The latest outside forecasts from the NIESR, the London Business School, Phillips and Drew, and the Central Statistical Office indicators—long-term, coincident and short term—all suggest either a levelling out by the spring or an upturn.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that the report from the CBI, which she says she has read, takes into account those factors and still arrives at the conclusion that I suggest, namely, that unemployment will be increased rather than reduced by the Budget? Is the right hon. Lady really trying to tell the country that the CBI consists of a group of liars?

The Prime Minister: Of course not. I deeply resent the fact that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to say that. The Budget will not increase unemployment. What is more likely than anything else to increase unemployment is people taking out more for themselves, regardless of the effect on others.

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Vauxhall Motors in Luton, having been on a one-day working week for several months, is now moving to a four-day week and full production? Does she agree that that shows the confidence which several businesses, large and small, are showing in the Government's economic strategy?

The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend is of course "Yes, Sir". Some companies are being realistic and making themselves competitive. They are the ones that will receive orders and be able to offer future and sound job prospects. Vauxhall is not alone in that. Some of the best news that we have had is the Hong Kong order, which will provide many jobs, and which was won because of the efficiency of these companies and the help given by the Government.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister find time to have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services about the important decision that he has taken to appeal against the award by a medical tribunal of a mobility

allowance to the parents of an autistic child? In this International Year of Disabled People, is she aware that it would be greatly appreciated if she took a personal interest in a matter that concerns so many people?

The Prime Minister: I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I expect that he took the decision on legal advice.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Whatever discussions my right hon. Friend has with the NEDC, will she take no notice of the opinions of the 364 economists, whose various opinions have been tried and have failed?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the 364 economists did more damage to themselves than to anyone else.

President Reagan

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for this House to wish President Reagan a speedy and complete recovery after the dreadful attempt on his life that took place yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have seen that various people in this country have sent messages, but it is good that from our own House there should go out a greeting to the people of the United States of America and to President Reagan and his wife. I should tell the House that I sent a telegram this morning as well.

Greater London Council (Housing Transfer)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the transfer of GLC housing to certain London boroughs.
In May 1980 the Greater London Council requested me to make an order under section 23 (3) of the London Government Act 1963 transferring the council's housing stock in the London boroughs of Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Lewisham and Waltham Forest to the borough councils. These boroughs were unwilling to accept the transfer of the stock. In these circumstances, the Act required me to consult the boroughs before reaching a decision.
There have been intensive consultations. I am now satisfied that it is right for the housing to be managed at borough level. I also believe that terms can be determined that will not only enable the stock to be assimilated smoothly but will lead to more effective housing management in London. My Department is today conveying this decision to the borough councils.
I shall be making an order transferring the stock to the borough councils on 1 April 1982, and intend to lay it before Parliament in the near future. A copy of the decision letter has been placed in the Library, together with a draft of the proposed order. The order will take into account the boroughs' views on the GLC's proposals, and in particular will impose an obligation on the GLC to bring the property up to an acceptable standard over 10 years.
The needs for housing mobility in London have changed considerably. The GLC's own mobility scheme for the transferred stock, together with the inter-borough nomination scheme, which is now to be part of the national mobility scheme, provides an adequate framework for meeting these needs, without the necessity to retain the GLC as a housing management authority. These transfers, together with those taking place by agreement, will largely fulfil the recommendations of the Herbert commission in 1960 that, to the fullest possible extent, council housing in London should be owned and managed locally by the borough councils.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement conceals more than it reveals?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many dwellings are being transferred?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the property being brought up to an acceptable standard. Is it the Parker Morris standard to which these houses were originally built? What is an acceptable standard? Will he decide it, will the GLC decide it, or will the boroughs decide it?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is satisfied, after intensive consultations, that it is right for the housing to be managed at borough level. Is that still being done against the wishes of the boroughs?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the reaction of the Greater London Council to his arrangements? Is it not true that the council has asked the right hon. Gentleman for guarantees that its housing investment programme allocation will be arranged in such a way as to ensure that it has the £450 million that it estimates is necessary to bring these houses up to an acceptable standard?
Is it not a fact that the Greater London Council has asked for an assurance that is its grant-related expenditure will be adjusted in such a way as to free it from the penalties of the taper that it could incur because of the increased expenditure that will be necessary on these houses?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the housing investment programme of the receiving boroughs will be adjusted to take account of the consequential costs that will face them?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rate support grant allocation for the Greater London boroughs, hypothecated to the housing revenue account, will be adjusted to take accunt of the increased costs of administration that will face the receiving boroughs?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say—[Interruption.] I have to ask these questions, Mr. Speaker, because this information is not in the statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the housing subsidy of these boroughs will be adjusted to ensure that the base amount is not artificially reduced in future financial years?
Finally, is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking a gross political manoeuvre, and that he is deliberately bringing the order before the House before a possible change in the political control of the Greater London Council on 7 May, when a Labour GLC would not wish to have these arrangements at all?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this process has been going on for 20 years. He knows full well that the Greater London Council has been considering this policy and working on it since 1977. A significant part of that period was when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was responsible for my Department.
The number of houses to be transferred is 53,428. The standards to which they will be maintained are the 10-point standards applicable to improvement grant applications.
The programme will be carried out over 10 years, and that should lead to the houses then having a minumum expected life of 30 years.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the order was against the wishes of the boroughs. It is a compulsory order, and it is to be put forward in that context. The rest of the houses—the 163,000—were transferred to 24 boroughs on a voluntary basis. This represents the last part of the programme, to complete the exercise.
There have been long discussions with the GLC and the London boroughs about the various terms upon which the transfers are to take place, because I have to put the order before the House and to satisfy myself about the terms. Obviously, one had to have consultations in order to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
The GLC has made requests of me, as one would expect, but the terms of the requests that it has made would assume that I am able to give commitments about the housing investment programme allocations for years to come. That is quite without precedent, and I cannot do it.
The housing needs of the boroughs and the GLC, in the light of block grant and housing investment programme allocations, will reflect their statutory duties, and their statutory duties will include responsibility for the transferred houses. All these things will be taken into account. I hope that the House will feel that this will be

a logical conclusion to the recommendation of 20 years ago that it is desirable that housing should be administered as close as possible to the people who live in it.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed throughout London by Londoners who have severe housing problems? Does he also recognise that the announcement is the fulfilment of yet another pledge given by the Tory GLC at the last GLC election?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that this will be seen as a sensible step forward in the administration of housing. I am pleased to confirm that it fulfils a pledge made by the Conservative GLC, in the way in which one would expect the Conservative GLC to carry out its pledges.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell Lewisham council how it is to find the nearly £1 million necessary to equalise the existing rents of the GLC with those of Lewisham? Why has he chosen this time to give a slap in the face to his friend Horace Cutler, in refusing to give any guarantees to the people of London that these houses will be brought up to the standards that he is making it a statutory duty of the GLC to achieve?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, has requested me to make these orders. He knows full well that I am not able to commit this or any future Government over a period of 10 years with the degree of precision implied by the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the rent policies, it will be for the London borough of Lewisham to take the essential decisions in the light of Government policies about subsidy and to decide how to phase in its new tenants with its existing tenants.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existence of the GLC housing stock provided the most important source of mobility within the Greater London area and that the inter-borough nomination scheme is a very inadequate substitute for it? Will he acknowledge that there is no housing case whatever for what he proposes and that the order is political not only in the sense outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) but in the sense that many of the outer London boroughs did not wish to relieve the housing stress of the inner London boroughs, and it is to exclude them from. that obligation that the whole of the GLC's housing management scheme is being abolished?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that when the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider the situation in more detail he will realise that his analysis does not stand up to investigation, particularly as six out of the 14 Labour boroughs have voluntarily accepted the transfer of this stock. If those six could see the virtue of this, it cannot be described in such partisan terms as the hon. Gentleman has, regrettably, tried to inject.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has today announced a very significant national mobility scheme, which overtakes the existing arrangements. the deficiencies of which the hon. Gentleman was right to


draw to the attention of the House, although he might have pointed out that the Labour Government made little attempt to rectify them.
The House will be pleased to know that under the new arrangements the GLC will retain 50 per cent. of nominations for the transferred housing and that there is a new arrangement today, agreed by the AMA, the ADC and the London Boroughs Association, in conjunction with the Government, whereby 1 per cent. of national vacancies are available for mobility purposes to people with social and economic cases from outside the areas concerned.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that from now on it will be impossible, without legislation, for the GLC to acquire land for housing purposes, particularly by compulsory purchase powers?

Mr. Heseltine: The questions raised by my hon. Friend are important, but he will appreciate that no changes in the statutory powers of the GLC are involved in what I have announced today. With the transfer of a very substantial part of the housing organisation of the GLC, a review of the GLC's housing powers might well be appropriate, but nothing that I have announced today should prejudge that issue.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when, in May 1980, the Secretary of State was asked by Sir Horace Cutler to transfer the stock, Sir Horace was not aware of the enormous costs involved? Since Sir Horace has found out those costs he has asked the Secretary of State not to transfer the properties. The Secretary of State had that letter in February. He know that that is the case. He is misleading the House. He knows that Sir Horace is aware that the cost factor over the 10 years will be £1,000 million or more and is now saying that the Secretary of State is wrong to carry out this proposal. Why does the Secretary of State persist in rebuffing Sir Horace by putting this burden on the people of London?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If Sir Horace should ask me to withdraw this compulsory order, I should, of course, be prepared to do so.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he comment on the effect on council house sales, as many inner London boroughs are going very slow on sales? Will he also give further thought to the fact that the London borough of Waltham Forest is going exceedingly slow on council house sales? Is he aware that that council owns 600 homes in my constituency and that my constituents cannot buy them? Will he do something to get those houses transferred to Basildon district council, which will sell them?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can tell the House that of the houses covered by the order some 700 are subject to right-to-buy applications by the tenants. The House will realise that the date of transfer is April 1982, so there is plenty of time for the right to buy to be completed within that time scale. For any houses that are subject to a right to buy at the date of the transfer, the legal responsibility—indeed, the duty—is of the authorities

concerned to carry out the implementation of right to buy will transfer from the GLC to the London borough concerned at that time.
My hon. Friend also raised the subject of inadequate progress in certain local authority areas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction dealt with this matter on Saturday, when he expressed very clearly the Government's concern at the lack of progress and made clear that it can now be only a short time before we have to take further, decisive steps in this matter.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Are not the two most important factors to bear in mind against the background of this proposal the need for more housing provision to be undertaken, whether by new build or by rehabilitation, by the GLC as well as the boroughs, and, secondly, the need to ensure that there is adequate mobility? On the first question, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a collapse in housing provision at GLC level? On the second, is he aware that in my borough, which is not a major receiving authority, there has been a reduction in nominations out of the borough through the GLC over the past three years from about 400 to 500 transfers per year to less than 100 currently? How can it be argued that the mobility arrangements in London are working effectively when there has been a reduction of three-quarters in mobility from a borough that is in the greatest need of all because it does not have major GLC estates within it?

Mr. Heseltine: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the mobility arrangements in London. He is, of course, particularly aware of them, as he was responsible for administering them. I do not think that they have been operating as effectively as we would wish. We wish to improve the arrangements. I believe that my hon. Friend's statement today is a significant step in that direction. But the procedures necessary to bring about these improvements are administrative procedures, and we shall be paying attention to that aspect.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the collapse of GLC housing provision. He will be familiar with the phenomenon of the decline in council house building, as he presided over one of the biggest declines since the war. He will therefore wish to join the Government in urging local authorities in London and throughout the country to release the maximum amount of land in order to allow private builders to continue the upsurge in private building that has now begun.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any housing stock will remain under the control of the GLC, and, if so, roughly how much?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A small number of houses will remain. They are largely centred in Thamesmead, where there are special problems. That is something to be considered at a later date. There are also some small housing areas in Covent Garden, as well as the seaside and country homes. However, the total number is small. I shall give my hon. Friend the precise figure in a letter.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Setting aside all party political considerations, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that he has announced a perfect formula for irresponsibility in housing management? I represent tenants on the GLC Ossulston estate, in


Somerstown. Is it not the case that when they complain to their new landlords—Camden council—the council will be able to say that the GLC is responsible, and in turn the GLC will be able to say that the Government are responsible for not providing the money to bring that estate up to scratch? The right hon. Gentleman ought to have come forward with a formula that was acceptable to everyone, because only that sort of formula will look after the interests of the tenants who are being transferred.

Mr. Heseltine: I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in the London boroughs to which the houses are being transferred. I take the view that the local authorities do the best that they possibly can in difficult circumstances. Under the terms of the orders that will be laid before the House, the hon. Gentleman will find that a substantial amount of money is built into the arrangements in order to bring the houses up to standards that are higher than currently exist. The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the Labour boroughs to which the houses will be transferred.

Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Will he confirm, I suspect for the umpteenth time, that it would make no sense at all for a minority of the housing previously run by the GLC to remain in its ownership when the vast majority of London boroughs have already accepted their share? Secondly, and more important from the point of view of actual and would-be tenants in the areas concerned, does he agree that it would make more sense to have but one landlord, prospective or actual, rather than two?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Twenty-four London boroughs reached perfectly amicable arrangements, which left only the last eight. The House will be invited to conclude the arrangements to bring about the coherence of local housing administration that makes sense for the people concerned.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: How will the order affect the Greater London Secondary Housing Association? Will that also be dispersed? The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have been in correspondence about the period of consultation. Has that period how been extended? With whom will the consultation take place? Will it be a tripartite consultation between his Department, the GLC and the London borough of Brent? What is the possibility of altering the numbers that are to be transferred?

Mr. Heseltine: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing only with the GLC housing stock. Other organisations are not affected by the orders that I shall bring before the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I shall call London Members first.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the many defects in his statement is a complete absence of any reference to what will happen to the employees of the GLC and the London boroughs? Will he review the decision not to meet a deputation of the trade unions concerned? There is grave disquiet among the trade unions about the industrial

relations aspect of this problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman meet the trade unions in the near future, because by doing so it could well be that he will save both himself and the GLC a great deal of trouble?

Mr. Heseltine: I have great concern for the anxieties of the employees affected. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help to reassure them that there is a time-honoured practice for transferring employees within the public sector. First, the arrangements are laid down in the Greater London Council Housing (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1979, presumably with the support of the right hon Gentleman, who was a Member of the House when that legislation was enacted. Secondly, there is a London housing staff commission to deal with any problems. This is a well-precedented activity within the public sector, but of course I shall keep an eye on it.

Mr. John Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said that if the present leader of the GLC requested him to withdraw the order he would do so. Will that promise hold good after 6 May?

Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware, this policy has been pursued and advocated for 20 years. The present GLC was elected in order to bring about that policy, and it is entitled to see that policy brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The policies that will be pursued by the GLC after the elections are a matter for the new GLC. The hon. Gentleman and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends should wait and see what happens before making forecasts about the policies that will be pursued.

Mr. Thomas Cox: How many estates in the GLC area has the right hon. Gentleman visited? Is he aware of their condition? Houses are boarded up and many are absolute dumps. No one would want to live in them. How long will that continue? Will it be the Department's policy to advance moneys to the boroughs to bring those properties back into habitable condition, or will they remain for years to come in the condition in which the GLC has allowed them to remain?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. Part of the arrangements within which the compulsory transfer is to go through is that within a 10-year period those houses will have been brought up to the standards of the 10-point improvement grant scheme. This is a real improvement either for those living in the areas or those who may find access to currently unused houses. It ensures a significant increase in standards.

Mr. David Alton: Is this not just another example of the high-handed attitude with which the Secretary of State deals with local government? It is rather like Thomas Cromwell and the way in which he dealt with the monasteries—first, list them, and then bust them. When the right hon. Gentleman meets local authorities, his idea of consultation seems to be "Tell them what I think, but do nothing about what they think". What consultation has the right hon. Gentleman had with the tenants who must live on these estates?

Mr. Heseltine: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was complaining about my attitudes to local government, but he then asked a question about consultation with the tenants. The GLC was elected on this programme. It is its housing stock, and it is entitled to see the policy carried through. During the last four years the GLC has had


widespread consultation with the local authorities in the London boroughs, the majority of which, including a significant number of Labour authorities, reached voluntary agreement. We are now left with eight, which for the bulk of the period when consultation was available were not prepared to get involved in the consultation process. That has forced me to come to a conclusion on this matter and to ask the House to act.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I put the question in simple terms. Is it not unfair and class-biased to deny the people of overcrowded, poorer inner city areas access to the land that they desperately need in the more spacious areas of outer London?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that that is one of the arguments in favour of a mobility scheme. I have told the former Minister for Housing and Construction that he must see how we can improve the administration of that scheme. It is not easy to do. Presumably, that is why the complaints mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are so deeply held—because the previous Government were quite unable to achieve a way of improving the scheme. I do not disagree with the concern raised by the hon. Gentleman, and we shall continue to do what we can to help.

Jennie Aste

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the case of Jennie Aste, who applied to the Inland Revenue to pay 40 per cent. of her tax to the Overseas Development Administration".
She wished to use that proportion to pay direct to the Overseas Development Administration. She applied to the collector of taxes in York and was initially refused. She then came to see me and showed me an acceptance of such a scheme by the collector of taxes in Wembley, which related to a London taxpayer. I sent that to the collector of taxes in York. Thereafter, he got in touch with my constituent and told her that she was entitled to do that if she wished. Therefore, she sent off the appropriate cheque. At no stage did the collector of taxes or any Treasury Minister get in touch with me direct, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had earlier issued a circular to all hon. Members to the effect that when such issues arose they should write not to him but to the appropriate local official. That is why I wrote to the collector of taxes.
I then learnt from the newspapers that a statement had been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue after the House had risen on Thursday night. It said that it intended to go back on the assurance given by the collector and that a mistake had been made. Again, the appropriate Minister did not contact me. Only at 12.5 pm today did I receive a letter from the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), the Minister of State, Treasury. In it he said that the Inland Revenue had made a mistake, because it had no discretion to allow a taxpayer to direct any part of her tax to anything other than the Consolidated Fund. He quoted no authority for that decision.
I was interested to see that the statement issued by the Board of Inland Revenue gave no authority for that

proposition. As I understand the income tax Acts, the collector of taxes and the Board of Inland Revenue have full discretion as to the manner in which they collect taxes. I have always understood that they could use that discretion in any way that they chose.
I realise this subject as a matter of urgency, because I have received hundreds of letters from those who wish to avail themselves of this facility. It is clear that many people would like to avoid paying taxes that will go towards armaments and would like the conscientious right to abstain from doing so. Indeed, in wartime people have the right to abstain from fighting. Although I do not subscribe to their view, I should like to give people this right.
The difficulty is that if the Board of Inland Revenue has a discretion that it can give with one statement and retract with another people will be denied their legitimate rights. Therefore, I ask the House for permission to raise this subject as a matter of urgency, so that the sincere wishes of hundreds of taxpayers may be given vent. They should be allowed to make their wishes known. If they were to be denied a right simply by the Minister's fiat, it would represent an arbitrary use of parliamentary power. I hope that the House would seek to curtail any such ministerial design.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) gave me notice earlier today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thought should have urgent consideration, namely,
the case of Jennie Aste, who applied to the Inland Revenue to pay 40 per cent. of her tax to the Overseas Development Administration.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that I decide not whether this matter should be debated but merely whether it is of such urgency and character that it should be debated either tonight or tomorrow.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Amendment)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to the definition of `material change of use of buildings' for development and control purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to try to take steps that will alleviate the second homes and holiday homes problem that affects parts of Wales severely and that is also felt in many other rural and holiday areas. Hon. Members will be aware of the existence of a problem from the extensive publicity given to arson attacks on second homes in Wales over a period of about 15 months, during which time between 40 and 50 second homes have suffered fire attacks.
I make it perfectly clear that I and my party can in no way condone such actions. We condemn violence of all


forms, and quite clearly the burning down of houses cannot solve housing problems. The arson attacks are, however, only the tip of a problem that has grown over the past two decades, and the tensions in certain local communities have been manifested in other less violent ways that have not caught the headlines. There have been protests at auction sales, paint daubings and bad feelings. The time has come when Parliament can no longer keep its head in the sand and positive action is needed to show in a practical way that the legislature is aware of these problems and is prepared to act to ameliorate them. Such action by Parliament is essential if we are to create a climate in which violence will not survive.
I wish to make two other matters clear. First, I am not advocating steps to try to eliminate second or holiday homes. There are many houses in my area—remote from towns and villages, or perhaps stuck on top of mountains or in the middle of forests—in which local people do not wish to reside. It is perfectly reasonable that they should be used as holiday homes. Clearly the income from the tourist industry is an important factor in a county such as Gwynedd. It is, however, a question of scale and of balance.
Secondly, I should make it clear that this is not a problem that is unique to Wales. Difficulties associated with the degree of penetration of second homes have been experienced in areas such as the Lake District and the South-West. Positive steps have been taken by many overseas countries, such as Switzerland and Denmark and by places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, to try to meet the problem. However, it is particularly acute in areas such as Gwynedd, in North-West Wales, for a number of reasons that are partly historic, partly economic and partly cultural.
Today, 31 March, is a significant day to discuss the problem, since for many people in Gwynedd it is the last day of their winter lets. They are now expected to clear out of the homes that they rented over the winter so that the owners can let those houses, at rents that local people cannot afford, to the holiday market, or so that they can use them for their own leisure purposes.
The magnitude of the problem in Gwynedd can be seen from the fact that a survey of second homes, carried out by the planning department of Gwynedd county council in 1979, showed that there were over 8,000 holiday homes in the county. That was at a time when there were about 4,600 families on the waiting list for local authority rented housing in the county. It is not difficult to imagine the strong feelings that develop when an abundance of housing stands empty for large parts of the year while families in the same vicinity cannot get a roof over their heads. To pretend that a problem does not exist is to fly in the face of reality.
Welsh Office figures published last Friday indicate that the problem may be even more severe and that the number of second homes in Gwynedd could be as large as 14,000. Those recent figures indicate that as much as 25 per cent. of the entire housing stock of the district council area of Dwyfor, in my constituency, are second homes and that 21 per cent. of the housing stock in Meirionnydd are also second homes. Within those average figures are concealed villages, such as Llanengan, Abersoch or Llanbedrog, in which the proportion of second homes is over 40 per cent.
In villages where the number of second homes has grown to that extent there are real problems for the residual community who live there round the year. In winter, the

village may become quite dead, with half the houses empty, and it is difficult to maintain services such as shops, schools and buses. That leads to pressures on some of the remaining population to move away. In my area, which is 87 per cent. Welsh speaking, second homes bring another pressure in summer—a linguistic tension—that adds to the strength of feeling on the issue.
Last summer, in a debate on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services gave an undertaking to hold "cross-government discussions" on the matter with a view to bringing forward a positive response to meet the problem. He invited representations from local authorities on the subject. In response, Gwynedd county council has submitted to him and to the Welsh Office a document that represents the wishes not only of the county council but of the Arfon, Dwyfor, Anglesey and Aberconwy district councils and of the national park authority for Snowdonia and that calls for specific steps to be taken to help alleviate the problems caused by second homes in some areas.
In that joint document, the local authorities state:
Second home buyers have raised the prices of the older and smaller properties in the county to such an extent that local inhabitants who would otherwise buy them are unable to meet the market price particularly as wages and salaries in Gwynedd are considerably lower than the national average.
The councils accordingly wish to emphasise the seriousness of the situation, the frustration and annoyance it causes to local people and the need for the Government to empower local authorities in the area to tackle the problem.
Those local authorities, which cover the Conservative-controlled areas represented by the hon. Members for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and for Conway (Mr. Roberts) as well as my constituency, call for specific action.
The House may recall that some steps have already been taken in Acts to discriminate between first and second homes. For instance, the Housing Act 1974 provides that improvement grants should not be available for improving second homes. Likewise, in the Housing Act 1980, there are powers for the Secretary of State to designate areas where holiday homes problems may be acute. In the Finance Act 1965 exemption from capital gains tax was not allowed for second homes. In the Finance Act 1972 tax relief on mortgages for second homes was abolished.
Parliament has recognised the difference in status between first and second homes. The question to which we must now apply ourselves is how we can make further provision that will help to solve the continuing problem.
In its submission Gwynedd county council asks Parliament to consider three methods of tackling the problem. The first is action by local housing authorities in being allowed and encouraged, in certain areas, to buy up holiday homes when they come on to the market so that they can be let to local people on the waiting list for council houses. That has been undertaken to a certain extent in my area, but the Government are wholly opposed to it. I believe that the Government should think again on that matter, but that is not the objective of my Bill.
The second proposal made by Gwynedd county council is for higher rating on second homes. That proposal has recently been pressed at an inquiry in the Lake District, where a call has been made for a penal rate levy on second homes. However, the Brill, by its nature, is an inappropriate vehicle for such a change.
The third proposal by Gwynedd county council—and the one on which I am putting the Bill forward—is to allow local planning authorities in certain areas to define as a material change of use the conversion of a house from a first home into a second or holiday home. If a house is to be converted from an office or a shop, planning permission is needed. Similarly planning permission would be required for a change of use of a house into a second home.
My Bill proposes that those powers should be made available to local planning authorities in those areas where a problem is seen to exist. I suggest that those areas should include national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas designated by the Secretary of State, as he has already done, for the purposes of the Housing Act 1980.
The merits of the proposal are that it puts the powers where they can best be used—in the hands of the local planning authority. That is the body that knows the problems of an area and whether it is reasonable for a house to be converted into a second home. In remote areas that may be thought to be appropriate, but in the middle of a village, when half the village has already been bought up, the authority may withhold planning permission.
These provisions are non-bureaucratic. They are decentralised to the communities that they affect and flexible so that they meet the varying circumstances of different communities. Furthermore, they would not cost the Government any money to implement.
The Bill not does purport to solve the second home problem. It deals only with controlling a further escalation of the problem. A full solution involves many other factors, not least the economic factors relating to the ability of persons in one part of the country being able to

afford a first home before others can afford a second one. But the Bill allows for a better balance to be struck between the varying interests involved in any community—the interests of those who are seeking a first home, those who want to buy a second home and not be subject to threats of violence, and those who want to sell their houses to one or other of those groups and to the community in which those houses are located. The failure to get the balance right has led to the strength of feeling on this issue in areas such as Gwynedd.
A Bill along these lines should be allowed to make progress because it is the specific request of the local authorities in my area who have to live with the problem. To block the progress of such a Bill would be to show that the House is turning a deaf ear to the representations of such areas and will do nothing but worsen what is already a serious and, in some cases, tragic problem. The Bill has the support of Members of all parties.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Tom Ellis, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. D. E. Thomas, Dr. Roger Thomas and Mr. Gordon Wilson.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT).

Mr. Dafydd Wigley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to the definition of "material change of use of buildings" for development and control purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

Orders of the Day — Forestry Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clause 1 has not been selected. I accept that, but I seek your guidance. I presume that the reason why it has not been selected is that these matters normally fall under Orders in Council under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, but how can an hon. Member discuss such an important matter if he cannot do it on a Bill of this nature? Additionally, I am advised that it is possible for a clause similar to this to be moved in another place, to be voted on and, if necessary, to be passed. When it comes to the House we shall be faced with considering it, but we shall not be able to move it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. As he will know, I do not give reasons for my selection. There is a good reason why I do not, namely, that it would lead to endless points of order. I listened with sympathy to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot alter the selection that I have already made.

New Clause 3

COVENANT IN SALE TO MAINTAIN STOCK-PROOF FENCING

`In the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted at the end of section 39 the following subsection—
(7) In any sale of land made under this section it shall be a condition of sale that a covenant be inserted binding the original purchaser and any subsequent purchaser to maintain a stock proof boundary fence". '.—[Mr. Mark Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I have much sympathy with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), namely, that on Report or in Committee the other place is empowered to press and perhaps to succeed in pressing, amendments which our rules do not permit. This is in no sense a criticism of your office, Mr. Speaker, in having to decline to select. It is in the nature of the different rules of order of the two Houses. I hope that when the Bill is debated in another place such a new clause will receive favourable consideration. Therefore, though not selected, I tell the hon. Member for Buckingham—I hope without a suggestion that your decision was improper, Mr. Speaker—that I am grateful to him for having tabled the new clause. I wish that the rules of order had allowed new clause 2 to be selected.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) should feel that the compliment paid to him has more than compensated for the fact that his new clause was out of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) will not pursue new clause 2 as long as it was pursued in Committee.

Mr. Hughes: In no circumstances, Mr. Speaker. When we discussed something akin to new clause 3 in Committee I was advised by the Parliamentary Secretary

that the amendment was legally unsound and could not be sustained. Therefore, on Report we introduce a new clause that I trust is legally sound. I hope that it will command the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not seeking to inhibit the ability of the Forestry Commission, under the orders of the Secretary of State, to sell forestry land for any purpose. He may not agree with the terms of clause 1, but the new clause is based on the premise that clause 1 has been carried and that the Bill is about to become part of the law.
We are about to impose upon the purchaser of such land, and any subsequent purchaser, a covenant that forces him to maintain a stock-proof boundary fence on and around the property. This stems from a gentleman's agreement entered into in 1956 between the Forestry Commission and the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, whereby, although not legally required to maintain such stock-proof fence, the commission undertook, at its own expense, to do so. This has been of immense benefit to farmers farming land adjacent to forestry land. They have not had the normal legal responsibility of fencing in their stock. The commission has accepted that part of its public responsibility was to fence out stock from forestry land and that, when sold, such fencing should be maintained.
I accept that new fencing is expensive. We are asking not that new fencing should be erected by the new owner but that the new owner should maintain a stock-proof fence round forestry land.
I accept that there are difficulties in Scotland, where the situation is significantly different. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Chamber. No gentlemen's agreement exists between the Scottish NFU and the Forestry Commission in Scotland. Therefore, different interpretations of the rules on grant-aid for boundary fencing obtain in Scotland. I doubt whether Scottish farmers have been the net beneficiaries of the different arrangements.
In England and Wales many small farmers in upland and hill areas on marginal land have had a significant improvement in their capital and current positions because of this gentlemen's agreement. The agreement has operated since 1956, and there is no evidence that it has significantly inhibited the Forestry Commission's ability to purchase land, to manage land, and to plant and reap the rewards of previous planting.
It may be argued that the inclusion of the new clause would mean the net receipts of sales under clause 1 being significantly reduced. That is not sufficient to undermine and abandon an arrangement that the NFU and the commission have allowed to continue to their mutual satisfaction for 25 years.
A farmer who in good faith bought his farm last year, in the expectation that the boundary fence would be maintained by the Forestry Commission, will, if the commission should sell adjacent land, have by retrospective legislation imposed upon him the duty to maintain the fence. The terms upon which he entered into the original contract for the purchase of that land will be changed by an Act of Parliament after the making of the contract. It is not in the best traditions of the House that contracts honourably entered into in 1979 or 1980 should be materially affected by an Act passed in 1981.
We are concerned possibly with a small hill farmer in, for example, central Wales—Gwynedd, Dyfed, or Powys—who has purchased a smallholding with perhaps


two-thirds of the boundary towards the mountain adjacent to forestry land. That farmer bought in the expectation that the Forestry Commission would maintain the stock-proof boundary fence and that there would be no call upon him to continue the maintenance costs, but by virtue of this legislation and the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he will find that that no longer obtains.
In Committee we were told that the pre-existing maintenance would be continued. Therefore, when in the late 1940s and 1950s a previous acquisition by the commission had been undertaken and the green and blue lines on the conveyance indicated that that would be the new purchaser's responsibility, that was waived, because of the gentlemen's agreement that the commission would undertake that responsibility. Those would have been the terms upon which the new purchaser bought the freehold or leasehold two or three years ago.
If we pass the Bill without new clause 3 we shall cause mischief to a number of purchasers who, in good faith, have bought and invested in properties during the past three of four years. That good faith is being undermined by the Government's unwillingness to allow this minuscule but important restriction and covenant on sales.
We may be told that such a covenant drives a coach and horses through all the laws of tort and contract in the United Kingdom. I remind the House that "forestry" stems from the Latin word "foris", which means "outside the normal run of common law". It has nothing to do with trees. "Foris" is concerned with common law arrangements, and it means that people may hunt and shoot but, as human beings, not have protection.
4.30 pm
Therefore, to say that a forestry Bill cannot include a specific covenant is to deny the whole of the mediaeval history of forestry legislation. The whole of the legislation on forestry until the major appeals in the Cromwellian period is about exclusion from normality. Therefore, if it is argued in this specific case that this makes the purchase of foris land—that which is outside the normal procedures of law—abnormal, that is absolutely classic for forestry legislation. That is what forestry legislation from the period of William Rufus has been about, and that is what it should still be about. Therefore, I trust that no arrow hits the Parliamentary Secretary when he next visits the New Forest.
We do not wish to delay the House on this matter, but we hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the feeling of many farmers—both those who have bought their farms recently and those who have been occupying them for many years—that this change, whereby they are made to bear a maintenance cost that was not part of their original bargain or contract, puts upon them a form of retrospective cost that they could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate when they made their original contract.
If the Parliamentary Secretary believes that the wording could be improved, I have no doubt that we would welcome his undertaking to do that. We are not asking that the new purchaser should create stock-proof fencing. That is not what is in the new clause. It is that he and his successor shall maintain the new fencing that already, under the gentleman's agreement, the Forestry

Commission has provided. We are not asking them to make a major capital investment. We do not believe that the loss of purchase value to the Crown, or to the Government—even though we regret the Government's desire to sell off such property—should be encumbered by a major capital charge, and that new fencing should be produced. We are simply saying that the purchaser shall maintain stock-proof boundary fencing that within England and Wales since 1956 it has been the custom and habit of the commission, whatever its legal obligations, to maintain.
Therefore, in moving this new clause as briefly as I can I hope that even at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that this is in no sense an amendment that seeks to undermine the principle of the Bill and reduce the contribution made to the Exchequer by the sales beyond a minuscule level. It does no harm to the principle of the Bill and it would give major relief to a vast number of small farmers throughout England and Wales.

Mr. Donald Coleman: It is a pity that we are not discussing new clause 2, but I understand the reason—that it would have concerned maintaining access and amenities. However, we are talking about a new clause which will affect access to forestry land, and I support what my hon. Friend said. We are asking to have put into the Bill a requirement that the Forestry Commission and those who may buy forest land maintain proper stock-proof fencing around the boundaries of their existing forest.
If we insist upon this and if the covenant is put into the Bill it will not do anything more than what is at present required under the gentleman's agreement. One of the advantages of ensuring that this provision is made is that it will rule out some of the difficulties and troubles with which we are familiar in places such as my constituency, where there are forests on the hills and hill farming is undertaken.
There has been friction from time to time between the Forestry Commission and the farmers in these hill farms because stock has strayed into the forest. The gentleman's agreement, when it works, is helpful and ensures that we do not have these difficulties.
I hope that the House will ensure that in this Bill we have the means of providing such a permanent arrangement for the future. I hope that the Minister will consider what we are asking and accept the new clause. It is designed not to cause additional expenditure but to ensure that amicable arrangements continue to exist between forestry and agriculture interests.
I support my hon. Friend's new clause.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have some doubts about the new clause and I would seek clarification before deciding whether or not to support it. As it stands, it appears that it would require a purchaser from the Forestry Commission to maintain an existing fence under the provisions of a covenant running with the land.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: Gladly, if the hon. Gentleman has a serious point.

Mr. Cormack: I merely wondered whether the hon. Gentleman's party was on the fence or coming down on one side of it.

Mr. Maclennan: I regret my generosity in giving way to the foolish hon. Gentleman.
The question in my mind is this. If the original purchaser of land already owns land adjacent to the forestry land which he has acquired and seeks to amalgamate the new land with his existing land, will he still be required to maintain the fence? As I understand it, that would be the effect of the clause.

Mr. Mark Hughes: It is precisely for that reason that the word "boundary" is introduced. If the new land is running with his land surely there is no boundary. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that a boundary which would have to be maintained cannot exist within a single holding. Therefore, there can be no such implication.

Mr. Maclennan: I am not so certain as is the hon. Gentleman that "boundary" is a legal term of art in the way that he describes. Perhaps he is right, but it would be unfortunate if the clause required subsequent purchasers to maintain unnecessary fences. Indeed, it would seem to obstruct the interests of sensible land use management and to impose wholly unnecessary burdens. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman resolves those problems in the wording of the clause. He may be able subsequently to clarify the point.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed and support the clause. As a hill farmer I declare my interest.
In respect of a fence erected, say, 20 or 30 years ago there has always been an agreement—sometimes a gentleman's agreement—between two neighbours that one farmer is responsible for 500 yards or half the length of the fence and the other farmer is responsible for the rest. The law of the land is that the owner of the stock must keep his animals at home.
I should like some clarification, as would many small farmers—hill farmers in particular. Suppose, for argument's sake, that the Forestry Commission sold 500 hectares of unplanted land to a private individual who did not erect a fence. Suppose that he planted thousands of small trees. The law of the land is that the farmer must keep his sheep at home. If they went across the boundary and destroyed all the trees, who would be responsible? Although the Minister and the Government will probably not accept the amendment, farmers need clarification.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) that there should be a covenant to maintain stock-proof fencing. There are many such covenants in the sale of farms in my part of the country. Perhaps the Government should accept the clause. It is a matter of common sense, which is the only way that people in the countryside will survive. Common sense must prevail if people are to live in harmony. Pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister from many sectors to accept the clause. For the sake of peace of mind and good relationships among farmers, the Forestry Commission and new owners, I hope that he will accept it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): We had a lengthy debate on this subject in Committee, when the amendment's wording was marginally defective. My reply covered several columns inHansard, but I shall

not repeat all I said then. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) told me that he would raise the matter again on Report.
It is important to comprehend what we are talking about. It was not until a ministerial policy statement in 1956, which arose from the Mid-Wales investigation report, that the Forestry Commission undertook to maintain stock fencing around its plantations in hill farming and upland grazing areas in England and Wales, even after they were no longer required for forestry purposes. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will remember that at that time there was considerable conflict between those who wanted to farm the hill areas of Wales for sheep and those who wished to afforest them.
One grievance concerned fences which were placed round new plantations, and still are. The answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardigan, about what would happen if 500 hectares of land were planted without a fence, is that the hares would eat the trees. So inevitably in the first instance the plantation would be fenced. The problem arises when the trees get bigger and no longer require vermin protection, and there is no stock-proof fencing—hence the agreement. That is how it come about. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) put his finger on the point. There are parts of the country where the practice is not to fence the forests. The shelter that is available from relatively mature woodland is useful in time of storm and tempest, and good for the forest, incidentally.
The maintenance of fencing under the gentleman's agreement is not in itself desperately expensive, but as time goes on so those fences collapse and require renewal. The hon. Member for Durham said that this was not costly, but it is currently costing the Forestry Commission about £500,000 a year to replace fences under that gentleman's agreement. No contractual or legal obligation is involved. If we were to accept the clause there would be a legal involvement for all time, and it would be an extremely expensive commitment for the purchaser to take on.
The purchaser anywhere in Britain, not just in the areas which at present are covered by the agreement, would be required to maintain a stock-proof fence even where there was no need for it. He would be legally bound to do so even if the adjoining owner also had a similar responsibility or there was a joint responsibility for a march fence, as happens in Scotland.
I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the principle of the fencing of stock in England and Wales is simply that the owner of the stock is responsible for the stock and if he wishes to constrain them on his land he must fence them within that land. In Scotland there is a different arrangement, whereby the cost of the fence is joined.

Mr. Donald Stewart: It is a better arrangement in Scotland.

Mr. Wiggin: I am the first to admit that there are many points in Scots law that we English would be wise to consider, but I am happy to say that that is not my responsibility.
In disposing of land the Forestry Commission will pass on all obligations that currently run with it, but I do not think that it would be right to impose a condition of this kind on a purchaser simply because the land is at present publicly owned. The clause suffers from the defect that the obligation that it seeks to impose is not usually passed on


to successive purchasers. Although I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Durham that if it says so in the clause this is what will happen, I believe that there are substantial legal problems in writing this sort of matter into the transfer of land. I am sure that he accepts that point.
I understand that there may be the odd rare occasion where land is sold and the purchaser believes that the forest next door will remain fenced, which is a pretty remote possibility. The purchaser would be unwise to read into the gentleman's agreement any contractual or legal obligations on the part of the commission. I do not think, given all the difficulties and substantial cost that would be raised by the clause, that the Government can acept A. I hope that the House will vote against it.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Given that the Government, under the proposals in the Bill, intend to sell off about 1 per cent. of our total forest assets—that is, £10 million worth of forest a year—what we are talking about in the amendment is 1 per cent. of £500,000 worth of liability. We are not talking about vast sums of money. We are talking about £5,000 worth of liability. I am concerned for the peace of mind of small farmers who are affected. I find the Parliamentary Secretary's answer wholly unsatisfactory. I accept that no sensible forester will do other than fence out vermin. That is not what the new clause is about. It is about fencing out stock. Given the very satisfactory way in which the gentleman's agreement has operated in England and Wales over the last 20 years I do not believe that the transfer of this arrangement to Scotland would cause a diminution of facilities to Scottish farmers. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 274.

Division No. 126]
[4.52 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd)


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric


Alton, David
Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dobson, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Eastham, Ken


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Edwards, R.(Whampt'n S E)


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
English, Michael


Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'y S)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John(Newton)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Flannery, Martin


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Coleman, Donald
Ford, Ben


Cook, Robin F.
Forrester, John


Cowans, Harry
Foster, Derek


Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Foulkes, George


Crowther, J. S.
Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Freud, Clement


Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John(Norwich S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)
George, Bruce


Davies, Ifor(Gower)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John





Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Ted
Parker, John


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Pavitt, Laurie


Grant, John(Islington C)
Pendry, Tom


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhaligon, David


Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)
Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Rooker, J. W.


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)


Homewood, William
Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)


Hooley, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Ryman, John


Huckfield, Les
Sandelson, Neville


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Sever, John


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Roy(Newport)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Mrs Renée


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)


John, Brynmor
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, James(Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry(East Flint)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Dan(Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)


Lyon, Alexander(York)
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W)
Thomas, Dr H.(Carmarthen)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thorne, Stan(Preston South)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tilley, John


McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McKay, Allen(Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McKelvey, William
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McNally, Thomas
Watkins, David


McNamara, Kevin
Weetch, Ken


McTaggart, Robert
Welsh, Michael


McWilliam, John
White, Frank R.


Magee, Bryan
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Maxton, John
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, William(C'try SE)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Woolmer, Kenneth


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David(Bolton E)


Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)



Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morton, George
Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. James Hamilton.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland





NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Banks, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Bell, Sir Ronald


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian






Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Grylls, Michael


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bevan, David Gilrsoy
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannam, John


Blackburn, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Hawkins, Paul


Bowden, Andrew
Hawksley, Warren


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayhoe, Barney


Bright, Graham
Heddle, John


Brinton, Tim
Henderson, Barry


Brotherton, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hill, James


Browne, John(Winchester)
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hooson, Tom


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Butcher, John
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Hon A.(Plym"th, S'n)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Kershaw, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus


Clegg, Sir Walter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cope, John
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian


Costain, Sir Albert
Latham, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan


Critchley, Julian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Crouch, David
Lee, John


Dean, Paul(North Somerset)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim(Beeston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian(Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Luce, Richard


Durant, Tony
McCrindle, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McQuarrie, Albert


Farr, John
Madel, David


Fell, Anthony
Major, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
Marlow, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil(Banbury)


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mather, Carol


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Peter(South Angus)
Mawby, Ray


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)
Mayhew, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter(West Devon)


Gow, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Hector


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)
Moore, John


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint





Morris, M.(N'hampton S)
Speed, Keith


Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)
Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)


Mudd, David
Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)


Murphy, Christopher
Sproat, Iain


Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Stainton, Keith


Nelson, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neubert, Michael
Stanley, John


Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin


Page, John(Harrow, West)
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)
Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire)


Page, Richard(SW Herts)
Stokes, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, John(Oxford)
Thompson, Donald


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Proctor, K. Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Wakeham, John


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)
Walker, B.(Perth)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)
Watson, John


Roberts, Wyn(Conway)
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitney, Raymand


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Shersby, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Silvester, Fred



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Peter Brooke.


Smith, Dudley

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

DISPOSAL OF LAND

Mr. Paul Marland: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after 'section', insert
`with the exception of the Royal Forest of Dean'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may discuss amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
`except for Woodlands containing Crown Woods.'.

Mr. Marland: I assure the Minister that in principle I am in favour of the Bill. It is absurd that an organisation with nearly £2 billion worth of assets should need a subsidy from the taxpayer of about £35 million a year in order to make ends meet. I am assured by officers of the Forestry Commission that that need is only temporary and


that in seven years it is scheduled to break even. It is absurd that an organisation with such assets should be unable to stand on its own feet from the word "go".
I regard the possible sale of the Royal Forest of Dean and other Crown forests to faceless investors as a national disaster. The Royal Forest of Dean is steeped in ancient history and tradition. Today's forester is of the same independent mind and rugged character as were his forefathers. It is our duty to preserve his ancient rights and traditions.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is all right for forests in other parts of the country to be sold to faceless investors but not the Forest of Dean?

Mr. Marland: The ancient traditions exist in the Royal Forest of Dean. It is a national asset and in some ways a national monument. Hundreds of thousands of people go there every year either for the day or for their holidays. They go there to examine the national heritage of the Royal Forest of Dean. They go walking, riding, swimming, picnicking and caravanning. They walk unrestricted through the trees.
The Forestry Commission has done much to encourage such tourism, and locally it has a good reputation. The commission has laid out the forest trails, established picnic spots and camping grounds, and allowed the visitors and local people to enjoy the freedom of the forest whenever they choose. However, such privileges have no legal status. If the forest were sold to faceless investors those rights could be snuffed out and people would be denied rights of access.
For centuries forest sheep have grazed there. The graziers are well aware that their sheep cause problems in some areas. If one goes down Cinderford High Street on a hot afternoon and one's way is barred by 25 sheep sunbathing, one can see that the people have a point.
The graziers, through their commoners' association, have co-operated with the commission in the restriction of numbers of sheep that they graze in the forest. Each sheep has to be clearly marked and flocks in the Cinderford area are hefted elsewhere on ground provided by the commission. It is easy to understand why the graziers believe it to be their right to graze their sheep in the Forest of Dean. This belief in their ancient rights and customs is reinforced by the fact that, although in 1808, under the Dean and New Forest Act, the foresters were discharged from all rights of common and from all manners of rights, claims and privileges to the Forest of Dean, they continued to enjoy those rights and privileges at the discretion of the Forestry Commission.
Then, in 1965, according to the Forest of Dean district council's legal department, under the provisions of the Commons Registration Act, local inhabitants were prevented from registering their interest and their rights of way in this common. It seems, therefore, that the Crown took away the statutory right of common and rights of way in 1808, and that local people have not been allowed to register their common rights since then.
If the Forest of Dean is sold there will be no forest trails, no picnic sites and no sheep, because they do not enjoy legal status. In their place will be high fences and "keep out" notices, if the new owner of the Forest is so inclined. The smoothly reassuring words of the Parliamentary

Secretary and the equally reassuring commitment by Forestry Commission officials that the Forest of Dean would never be sold off, coupled with the assertion that if the forest were offered for sale no one would buy it because too many local interests would prevent people from buying it, are not enough. If the land were cheap enough, someone would buy it. If the Forestry Commission decided that it wanted money at a later date, it might well sell the forest.
We want more than a gentleman's agreement that the Forest of Dean will not be sold off. It is a sad fact that Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come and go, Forestry Commission officials come and go, and Members of Parliament for Gloucestershire, West undoubtedly come and go, so more than a gentleman's agreement is needed to ensure the freedom of the Forest of Dean for future generations.
It is not true to say that we cannot make exceptions. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 an exception was made for small coal mining operations such as those which abound in the Forest of Dean. I believe that the Royal Forest of Dean is a special case, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept my amendment.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I note that with this amendment is coupled amendment No. 6, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Forest of Dean is an exemplar of many forests where the historic position of Crown land and Crown forests with all the rights of soc and coke, ingang feoff and outgang feoff have been exercised for centuries. Those rights are at the heart of the matter.
Crown woodlands are present in the New Forest South-East England conservancy, where there is perhaps the most extreme pressure of alternate land use and misuse. We have a Crown woodland in the Alice Holt, Hampshire, West Sussex, and Surrey—a forest of about 3,200 hectares. We have the Bedgebury forest, in Kent and East Sussex, of 3,900 hectares. There are 27,000 hectares in the New Forest, and approximately 3,400 acres in the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is in his place. I shall surprise him by telling him that that is the sort of woodland that amendment No. 6 seeks to exclude from these sales.
I take nothing away from the special pleading of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), in whose constituency lies the Forest of Dean, but there is a small group of forests and woodlands in England, Wales and Scotland which, by accident or design, contain Crown woods. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that the Forestry Commission had given him verbal undertakings that they would not be high on any list of priorities, and would not be excluded.
We are not asking for something that the Forestry Commission wants to be excluded. We are asking that the undertakings given to the Parliamentary Secretary and relayed by him in Committee should be put into statutory form.
5.15 pm
I shall give a list of the woodlands that are involved. In Wales there are Beddgelert and Tintern. Anyone who knows North and South Wales knows that those are areas of particular beauty. If those woodlands which contain Crown woods were sold and eroded or destroyed by


inadequate planning control—there is nothing in the Bill to ensure adequate planning control—great tracts of beauty would be lost for ever.
In my part of the North-East we have Chopwell wood, near Tyneside, which is much used by the inhabitants of Tyne and Wear, Newcastle and Blaydon. In those woods there is a symbiosis between the woodland of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and the Forestry Commission land of Chopwell. The two can exist only if they are run together. If the Forestry Commission sold off Chopwell, mischief would be done to the management and maintenance of the nearby woodlands of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.
In Cheshire we have Delamere. In the West of England, there is the Forest of Dean. In the South of England there is the New Forest, the Isle of Wight, Alice Holt, Bedgebury, and so on. In Scotland there is Inverliever—the only one there. All those woodlands contain Crown land. Why must we have this specific reservation? Between 1922 and 1927, a number of small parcels of woodland were transferred by the Crown to the Forestry Commission under restricted covenant.
As we said in Committee, the Forestry Commission accountants have a problem. If the land is sold the Forestry Commission has a highly specific liability to pay the original donors. Many of the woodlands were acquired under now obsolete legislation. A condition was that if they were sold the Forestry Commission would have to reimburse the original gurantee—in this case the Crown. If Crown woodlands are sold in the Forest of Dean, the New Forest or the Isle of Wight, the Treasury does not benefit. The proceeds have to be transferred to the Crown Commissioners.
By extending the Forest of Dean argument to all Crown estate woodlands we seek to protect some of our most beautiful woodlands. To demonstrate our position, we shall support the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West in the Lobby on amendment No. 2.

Mr. Geraint Howells: We are uncomfortable about the wide-reaching implications of the Bill, which follow from the sweeping powers granted to Ministers in clause 1. I support the amendments that exclude woodlands such as the Forest of Dean.
I gladly support the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). The Forest of Dean is one of our most beautiful forests, but we have others. In my constituency of Cardigan we have a narrow-gauge line from Aberystwyth to Devil's Bridge, which travels for 12 miles through a beautiful valley and through forestry land. It would be a shame if that forest were sold to a private individual and the trees demolished.
Express restrictions on Ministers' power to sell such woodlands to the private sector to the detriment of the public are much needed. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary assured us that Ministers and the Forestry Commission would exercise common sense and good management. I am not convinced that we can rely absolutely on that. Different Governments have different ideas about common sense and good management. The objective of this Government is to reduce Exchequer liability. When such objectives become of overwhelming significance to them a Government can easily lose sight of the social consequences of their decision and may damage the quality of life for the public, who enjoy the

recreational and sporting amenities in our forests. A Government must not be insensitive to the public desire and right to enjoy our beautiful forests.
Unless we restrict Ministers' power to dispose of this land, this or a future Government, when pursuing objectives that have nothing to do with preserving our forestry industry, may forget the promise to the public that forest parks will not be sold to the private sector. I hope that in common sense the House will vote to safeguard our forests.

Mr. Cormack: I was greatly moved by the splendid eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). His constituents should acknowledge what he has done today. He spoke with vigour and determination on their behalf. They have every right to be proud of him. However, he was perhaps a little over-parochial. I am sorry that we may be voting on amendment No. 6 instead of amendment No. 2. We should deal with Crown woodlands generally.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) raised a significant and important point. I cannot share the strictures that they would heap on possible buyers, but certain woodlands are so beautiful and so important to our heritage that they should not be put at risk.
It appears that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted that argument in Committee. No one who knows him could doubt his abilities or sympathies, but he will not hold that office for ever. If Ministers do not intend to oblige the Forestry Commission to get rid of the woodlands, or if the Forestry Commission has no intention of putting them up for sale and there is unanimity between Government and Commission, why not write that into the Bill to ensure that no trigger-happy Minister or careless Forestry Commission will dispose of priceless national assets?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the first hon. Member I have heard in 11 years to admit to be speaking for sheep. It was a brave admission. In speaking for sheep in the Forest of Dean he demonstrated his deep love and knowledge of the area and recognised that wild life and livestock are important to our woodland heritage.
I shall be inclined to support his amendment in the Lobby, but I hope that it will not be necessary. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary shows his sympathy for the cause. I hope that he will tell us that in another place a suitable amendment will be inserted to make it impossible for the woodlands to be disposed of.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I had not intended to speak on the amendment until I heard the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). The hon. Gentleman reminded me that when I entered this place one of the first Standing Committees on which I served considered a Bill to consolidate or remove forest law. The House made special arrangements for the Forest of Dean. I hope that other special arrangements will be made by the Government in response to the hon. Gentleman.
Some time ago a group of hon. Members, including myself, who have an interest in forestry visited the Forest of Dean. We well understood why there is a tradition in the area for the Member of Parliament to be especially interested in forestry. At one time, before certain protective arrangements applied, the hon. Member who


represented the Forest of Dean was a Forestry Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, John Watkinson, is extremely interested in forestry.
I hope briefly to take part in the debate on Third Reading. If I catch the eye of the Chair, I shall refer to a report on forestry that I took through the Council of Europe two years ago. The report was originated by John Watkinson. He follows a line of involvement and interest which the House should commend.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that he should respond to anxiety in his constituency and try to ensure that the historic legacy of the Forest of Dean is preserved. However, there are parts of England where the forests and woodlands may not be quite so historic, so well-known or so attractive as the Forest of Dean. It may be that they occupy a small part of the surface of such other districts and regions. Nevertheless, they are extremely important to their localities from the points of view of amenity, environment and conservation. I am concerned that these small areas could be put at risk by the Bill. I hope that in extending protection to the Forest of Dean the Minister will ensure that the Forestry Commission's interests in other areas, small though they may be, are not dismantled.
It is important that there is a local structure and relationship involving the Forestry Commission in any and every part of the British Isles. That is important in cooperating with large landowners, with local authorities and with other forestry interests. If the commission disposes of its holdings in a given area it could make its regional or local presence that much more economic.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) held out for me the rather attractive prospect of the Minister's departure to other areas. However, another Minister may take a particularly harsh view of these matters. The present Minister is not incapable of taking a harsh view. I should hate the hon. Gentleman or his successor to decide that because there is only a small commission involvement in a region it should be removed or dismantled. On the grounds of viability and the commission's national responsibilities I hope that the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, which many others on both sides of the House commend, will prove to be acceptable to the House.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) spoke with his customary eloquence and with the care for the interests and enthusiasms of his constituents that we and they have come to expect. However, I wonder whether his misgivings are entirely well-founded. It would be a historic act of vandalism for Crown lands in the Forest of Dean, that have existed for 800 years to be sold off in some spasm of commercialisation if the Bill becomes law. I cannot believe that that would happen. I do not need the assurance—which I am nevertheless glad to accept—of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to find it almost unbelievable that the Forest of Dean would be treated in such a way.
Apart from the scenic beauty of the Forest of Dean and the undesirability of splitting it up or cutting it down, surely we know that an organisaton such as the Forestry

Commission, which never dies and has no cause to wonder about its heirs, or anything like that, has no reason to sell except for the purpose of good forest management. Private estates often have to be split up for such reasons but the commission need have no such fears. I cannot believe that there is the slightest danger of that happening. If it were to happen we would have not only the Minister's assurance but the record of what has been said on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am sure that the commission will be watchful of its public image and will be aware that it should not do anything that will be regarded with horror by every thinking person who has good forestry at heart.
In spite of the cares and anxieties of my hon. Friend I contend that the Bill is not the measure in which to insert the restrictions that he wishes to introduce. I cannot remember the constituency of the Labour Member who preceded me——

Mr. Hardy: It is Rother Valley.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: It is a pretty low sort of place. The hon. Gentleman indicated the anxieties that I have in mind. He implied that no one could possibly think of selling off chunks of the Forest of Dean but that there are some other rather unattractive places that could quite easily be sold off. If that is so, let us make different rules for different places. The special pleading of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, which is perfectly justified from his constituency's point of view, should be dealt with in some other way. The Forest of Dean is unique, and I am sure that it will not be sold off. If there is anxiety, or if there is a problem, the right way to deal with it will be for the Gloucestershire county council or a private Member to introduce a Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It may surprise hon. Members to know that they do not have to go very far to see one of the most beautiful forests in Britain that was under Royal patronage, namely, Epping Forest. It is no longer under Royal patronage. It is the only open-air lung that the East Enders of London have the opportunity of opening and breathing through. It is a marvellous forest.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) mentioned sheep. The cattle of Epping Forest come up to the railway lines. That goes one better than the hon. Gentleman. I often receive complaints from my constituents about cows eating roses in the gardens. This is Epping Forest, which extends to the borders of London. Conservative Members will cheer when I say that it is looked after by the City fathers—the City of London corporation—to which I pay a 100 per cent. tribute.
One of the first battles that I fought in the House took place 36 years ago, when the then West Ham council wanted to purloin part of Epping Forest and to build flats on it. I had to fight my local authority and my local party. First, there would have been flats. There would have followed shops, garages and other buildings. We would have lost part of the forest.
It is right that Ministers, political parties and civil servants come and go. They forget the promises that have been made. It is easy for them to find good excuses. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) knows that one of the largest and most heavily financed lobbies is the road lobby. The road lobby is always trying to drive roads through here and there. The City of London corporation has had a heck of a job trying to preserve Epping Forest


from the incursions by the Department of Transport. We must fight like Kilkenny cats to prevent that from happening. The day may come when some bright spark thinks that it would be good to have a double, treble or quadruple motorway going through the centre. All sorts of excuses will be made for extra bits to be added on.
Unless one puts up a strong fight, excuses will be found to choose the easiest answer. If one wants a road to go from the City of London to the East End, why go through the industrial area when one can go straight through the forest? It will be said that it is easy to cut down a few trees and that it is cheaper and quicker. Thank goodness there is the City of London corporation, the City fathers, vergers and local people, who say that that cannot be done. There is a private Act which prevents the Government—the last Government or the next Government—from doing so. I hope that the Minister will either give a promise to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that the matter will be put right or, if the amendment is not legally in order, that the principle will be accepted and that it will be dealt with in another place.
So often we take away our limited good environment. Any person or organisation taking action to try to prevent the despoliation of our countryside should be supported. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Mr. Wiggin: I take it that in amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) means by "Crown Woods" the woodlands that were transferred to the Forestry Commission by the Commissioners of Woods under the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923. Those include the Forest of Dean and the New Forest. The New Forest and the Forest of Dean were the major tracts of land concerned in that transfer.
The Forestry Commissioners fully recognise the special status of the Forest of Dean and the New Forest. It is not in their minds to make substantial sales in either of those areas. However, there is a problem. In the day-to-day management and under the existing legislation a considerable transfer of properties takes place in those areas. In the Forest of Dean there are frequently sales of what is known as forest waste. I understand that some of the hon. Member's constituents believe that even that should be prevented. In the management of the forest there are sales of open land and of cottage properties. In the New Forest some houses are also for sale. An amendment of this order would preclude those sales, which have taken place over the years as part of the ordinary management of the estate.
5.45 pm
There are some smaller and insignificant Crown woodlands scattered around the country which were transferred under the 1923 Act, which would be regarded as part of the normal forest estate and would be disposed of if considered appropriate, subject to the ordinary criteria.
I shall refer in particular to the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, concentrating on the Forest of Dean, which is mentioned in the amendment. I had the privilege and pleasure of visiting that part of the world the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). We discussed his fears. During that visit I made it clear in public that the Forestry Commission had no intention of selling the Forest of Dean. It is the least

attractive of the 1,200,000 hectares owned by the commission, from the point of view of investment. For that reason alone it is unlikely to be considered.

Mr. Marland: Surely whether it is an attractive investment depends on the price. If there are local interests, surely id would be offered at a lower price.

Mr. Wiggin: It is not going to be offered for sale. When I said "least attractive," I meant from the point of view of investment, because in most part the woodlands are not in particularly good order. They are hardwood. I do not believe that there is the slightest danger of anyone seeking to buy the Forest of Dean, let alone of the Forestry Commissioners wishing to sell it.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend will know that National Trust land is inalienable. Parliament has made it so. Why cannot we extend that principal and build on that precedent?

Mr. Wiggin: I am trying to explain that if that is done it is stultifying the ordinary operations of estate management.

Mr. Mark Hughes: That is not true.

Mr. Wiggin: It is true. I have already been involved in the sale of a large number of properties in the New Forest which are surplus to commission requirements. That is a complicated operation. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go and look for himself I am sure that the commission will show him the complexities of that operation. They amount to far more than just running the forest. There are many ramifications. Therefore, it would be wrong to ossify the situation in such a way that the commission cannot use its discretion, as it has done in the past.
In fairness, my hon. Friend will agree that the commission has been a good steward of the Forest of Dean so far. The Bill is necessary only on a legal technicality.

Mr. Hughes: No.

Mr. Wiggin: Yes, it is. If they had wished, the Forestry Commissioners could have abused their position over that time. They have not done so. The Bill in no way alters their intention towards the Forest of Dean. There is no intention of disposing of large tracts of land there or in the New Forest. I hope that my assurance will be accepted.

Mr. Geraint Howells: One thing is certain. If it is the wish of the Forestry Commission to sell the Forest of Dean, it will have the right to do so once the Bill has had its Third Reading.

Mr. Wiggin: It will have a better right. It will have a clear legal right. The Bill was introduced because the previous right to sell land, which is there in black and white, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) knows, was under question by the lawyers. the commission did not use that previous position to sell off the Forest of Dean; nor will it do so in the future.

Mr. Marland: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I agree with much of what he said about the outstanding stewardship of the commission in looking after the Royal Forest of Dean and other Royal Forests. However, he is still asking us to accept a gentleman's agreement from himself and the commission that they will not sell off the Forest of Dean. I am afraid that to me., on behalf of my constituents, that is unacceptable.

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 267.

Division No. 127]
[5.49


AYES


Adams, Allen
Graham, Ted


Allaun, Frank
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Alton, David
Grant, John(Islington C)


Anderson, Donald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Haynes, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, Rt Hon A..(M'b'ro)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Homewood, William


Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'yS)
Hooley, Frank


Callaghan, Jim(Midd'fn &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Campbell, lan
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy(Newport)


Cook, Robin F.
Janner, Hon Greville


Cormack, Patrick
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cowans, Harry
John, Brynmor


Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toofg)
Johnson, James(Hull West)


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry(East Flint)


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Jones, Dan(Burnley)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)
Lamond, James


Davies, Ifor(Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechfd)
Leighton, Ronald


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)


Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)


Dempsey, James
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Dixon, Donald
Lyons, Edward(Bradfd W)


Dobson, Frank
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh


Douglas, Dick
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dubs, Alfred
McElhone, Frank


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Dunn, James A.
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Edwards, R.(Whampfn S E)
McNally, Thomas


Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
McNamara, Kevin


Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)
McTaggart, Robert


English, Michael
McWilliam, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Magee, Bryan


Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)
Marland, Paul


Evans, John(Newton)
Marshall,D(G'gow S'ton)


Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Martin,M(G'gow S'burn)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ford, Ben
Maxton, John


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Foulkes, George
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon C.(shaw)


Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Garrett, John(Norwich S)
Morton, George


George, Bruce
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
O'Neill, Martin





Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stoddart, David


Parker, John
Stott, Roger


Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Penhaligon, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)


Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Price, C.(Lewisham W)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Race, Reg
Thorne, Stan(Preston South)


Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)
Tilley, John


Richardson, Jo
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Roberts, Albert(Normanton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Robertson, George
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)
Watkins, David


Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)
Welsh, Michael


Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)
White, Frank R.


Rowlands, Ted
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


Ryman, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Sever, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, William(C'try SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)
Winnick, David


Silverman, Julius
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Woolmer, Kenneth


Snape, Peter
Young, David(Bolton E)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Walter Hanrison and Mr. James Tinn


Stallard, A. W.



Steel, Rt Hon David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Alexander, Richard
Clegg, Sir Walter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cockeram, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John


Arnold, Tom
Corrie, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Costain, Sir Albert


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Critchley, Julian


Banks, Robert
Crouch, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dean, Paul(North Somerset)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bright, Graham
Farr, John


Brinton, Tim
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Forman, Nigel


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Peter(South Angus)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fry, Peter


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Butcher, John
Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Goodhart, Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gorst, John


Chapman, Sydney
Gow, Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)
Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)






Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John


Griffiths, E,(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Morgan, Geraint


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)
Morris, M.(N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Newton, Tony


Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Heddle, John
Page, John(Harrow, West)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard(SW Herts)


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Patten, John(Oxford)


Hooson, Tom
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hunt, David(Wirral)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michaei
Raison, Timothy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)


Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn(Conway)


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lee, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Lester, Jim(Beeston)
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian(Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John(Argyll)
Smith, Dudley


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st)
Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)


Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marten, Neil(Banbury)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mellor, David
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Mills, Peter(West Devon)
Trippier, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard





Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Waddington, David
Wickenden, Keith


Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wilkinson, John


Walker, B.(Perth)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Ward, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, John(Maidstone)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Donald Thompson.


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John

Question accordingly negatived.

6 pm

Mr. W. Benyon: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in 0page 1, line 9, at end insert
`providing that in any one year the proceeds of such disposals shall not exceed the grant in aid to the Forestry Commission for that year or if they do the balance shall be carried forward to the next and subsequent years'.
This is an attempt—I hope not a vain attempt—to achieve some consensus on some of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, and thereby to ensure that the measure starts its life with the widest possible agreement and good will. It is essential to grasp that the Bill is predominantly a financial and not a forestry measure.
First, therefore, the amendment seeks to limit the enabling power given to Ministers by the Bill. None of us likes wide enabling powers. The amendment places a very modest limit on their exercise under this legislation. If the Government propose to exercise their powers with moderation, as we have been assured from the start is their desire, they have nothing to fear from the amendment.
It remains irrefutable, however, that under the Bill as drafted the Government—any Government—could sell the entire forestry estate of the Forestry Commission. The Minister himself acknowledged that in Committee when he said:
I understand these fears very well.
He continued:
if I can be convinced that there is some sensible constraint which would satisfy the fears that have been expressed, yet which would be reasonable and not lead to endless litigation or delay or constrain the Forestry Commission from exercising its ordinary commercial practice or deprive the market of what the market can absorb, I am certainly not so rigid in my thought as to say that I shall not consider any such suggestion before the Bill leaves this House."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 February 1981; c. 104.]
The amendment is a response to that invitation.
Secondly, the amendment acknowledges the Government's desire—and, indeed, my own—that the Forestry Commission should become self-financing at the earliest possible moment and thus relieve the taxpayers of their present obligations. That was expressed by the Minister in Committee as follows:
the object of the Government here is to reduce the Exchequer liability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 February 1981; c. 45.]
I absolutely accept that.
Thirdly, the amendment provides an incentive for the Forestry Commission to sell which would otherwise be lacking because it could thereby lessen its dependence on the Treasury and at the same time continue its forestry enterprise at the optimum level of finance and management.
Fourthly, the amendment ensures that the money raised from sales will continue to be used in forestry if the need


is there. That is the important point. Equally, it does not alter the position under clause 2, whereby an overall surplus achieved by the Forestry Commission can be paid into the Consolidated Fund. I am emboldened on this aspect by the Minister's remarks in Committee, when he said:
The purpose of clause 2 is, indeed, if the sales of land and/or the profits made on the sale of timber go beyond the needs,—
to me this is the important point—
and the sensible needs, of the Forestry Commission, as decided by forestry Ministers …money will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1981; c. 121]
My amendment entirely accepts that position.
Throughout the discussion on the Bill there have been two recurring themes. First, there is the desire of the Government to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and to encourage greater participation by the private sector. That has been matched by the concern in many quarters that the enabling powers are too wide and that the proceeds of sales will be lost to forestry even if the need is there.
Overall hangs great uncertainty in all the measures proposed in the Bill. First, will the private sector respond? Secondly, what level of sales can be achieved? There has been an estimate of £10 million, but we do not know. Will the Bill and the arrangements for the private sector, taken together, make a major impact on the future level of imports?
The key issue in my view, however—this is the reason for the amendment—is not the transfer of assets from the public sector to the private sector, important though that may be, but the totality of the industry and its economic viability. That depends essentially on confidence. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It may be—it probably is—imperfectly drafted, but its sense and design are clear. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cormack: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who moved the amendment with considerable eloquence. The case that he put is supported by all the officers of the Conservative Party forestry sub-committee. We are not against the Bill as such, or the powers to sell off parts of the Forestry Commission's assets, but we are concerned about the two points to which my hon. Friend drew emphatic attention. They are, first, the wide enabling powers given to the Minister, and secondly, the question where the proceeds from the sales would go. I wish to make two brief points to emphasise what my hon. Friend said.
First, of course, we have total trust and confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other Ministers charged with responsibilities under the Bill. This is no personal attack upon them, and implies no suggestion that we question their judgment or integrity for one moment. We are, however, extremely concerned that in legislating Parliament is giving powers to a Minister and not to an individual, and wide enabling powers can be misused. We should be worried if some people occupied the posts occupied in such distinguished manner by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We therefore wish this note of caution to be accepted by the Government.
The second and perhaps even more important point made by my hon. Friend concerns the proceeds of sales. On Second Reading—I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Committee—I was among those who said that

we were concerned that this was a Treasury measure rather than a forestry measure. I said at that stage that unless some amendments were made I should find myself in a difficult position on Third Reading. Indeed, if the amendment is not accepted—or, rather, if the spirit of the amendment is not accepted—I am afraid that I shall be unable to vote for the Third Reading. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister either to accept the amendment here and now or to make it plain that a similar amendment having the same effect will be introduced by the Government in another place. If he cannot give that assurance, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) to press the amendment to a Division. I should certainly support it in the Lobby, and I should then be unable to vote for Third Reading.

Mr. Bruce Milian: I well understand why the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) moved the amendment and was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). He wishes to place some restriction on the wide powers given to Ministers by the Bill. That theme has run through all the debates on the Bill—on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report.
I am slightly worried about the amendment. The grant in aid to the Forestry Commission is at present about £40 million a year. However, in 1979–80 it was rather more than £40 million, but there were special reasons for that. On adjustment, the correct amount for that year should have been about £38 million.
Even the amendment will allow scope for disposals well beyond anything that the Opposition—or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Buckingham—could accept. It would help if the Minister could explain rather more coherently what the Government expect in the way of disposals, both in terms of acreage and the money involved. It would also help if the Minister could explain exactly what will happen to the money.
Only last week, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the Earl of Mansfield spoke to the Royal Scottish Forestry Society in Edinburgh. That speech was reported inThe Scotsman on 26 March. He made the bold and inaccurate statement that
The receipts will be ploughed back into the commission.
As I understand it, that will not happen to the receipts from the sales. We have had different accounts from the Minister of State——

Mr. Wiggin: Is that in the Bill?

Mr. Milian: The Bill states that the money will go into the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, as far as I can see, my hon. Friend's ministerial colleague's remarks are inaccurate.
Before the Opposition decide how to vote we should have a great deal more clarification than we have had so far about the scale of the disposals which the Government envisage. We should also be told what will happen to the money. I am talking about the next few years. No Government can commit a subsequent Government. Indeed, it is part of the hon. Gentleman's apprehension that this type of modest amendment may be necessary in years to come when a Government might be disposed to sell off Forestry Commission assets on a large scale. From that point of view, such an amendment would be a safeguard. At present, it might even carry the implication


that it would be all night for the Government to sell off £30 million or £40 million worth of assets a year. I would oppose and regret that.

Mr. W. Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman will also accept that as the Forestry Commission's woodlands become more productive its income will increase and the two will come together.

Mr. Milian: I accept that. In any case, without the Bill we do not know when the break-even year will be. If it were 10 years from now the amendment would be valuable at that time. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, which could be ended if the Minister clarified the position.
I support the thought behind the amendment. Unless we get a satisfactory answer I would be disposed to support it.

Mr. Alex Pollock: I endorse what has already been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) because I believe that the amendment goes to the root of the disquiet which has persisted ever since the Bill was first presented to Parliament. That disquiet has been shared throughout the House. No doubt it will continue when the Bill goes to another place for consideration.
The reason for that disquiet is that, in spite of the several assurances from the Government, both here and elsewhere, that the Bill will not be used to decimate Forestry Commission land, the fact remains that its scope is enormously wide and that it gives enormous enabling powers to the Government of the day in respect of any sale of Forestry Commission land. Coupled with that is concern about the role of the Treasury. Is this truly a Forestry Bill, or is it Treasury-inspired? I fear that the doubt remains.
6.15 pm
If the amendment were at least accepted in spirit and principle it would go a considerable way towards allaying the fears on both sides of the House about the risk to the bipartisan support for the continuing existence of the Forestry Commission alongside the private sector. If a similar amendment were acceptable to the Government, that risk would no longer persist. In Committee I felt obliged to reserve my position. I shall continue to do so until we hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Wiggin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) for the courteous and clear way in which he moved the amendment. From their public utterances and from private conversations I am familiar with the concern that my hon. Friends have expressed and I fully understand it. The Forestry Commission has been completely free to buy land, and I can see no justification for constraints on the sale of land. That is what the argument is all about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham quoted what I said in Committee, namely, that I would be prepared to consider constraints that fell within certain parameters. The amendment is technically unsatisfactory, but I do not think that that will trouble my hon. friend. However, I understand that it would be necessary to transgress the law if the second part were to be implemented. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend that. The issue relates to the argument behind the amendment rather than to the details of it.
The grant in aid mentioned in the amendment: will effectively be the constraint. A sum is fixed by agreement in the normal way, but that in itself could be open to some manipulation. I recognise that under the public expenditure programmes the figures are produced in advance, but this could be manipulated.

Mr. W. Benyon: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point. However, that would be manipulatable only in the interests of the Forestry Commission, because the sales could increase only if the grant in aid were increased.

Mr. Wiggin: I understand that point. My hon. Friend asked whether the private sector would respond. I have made it clear all along that the Government do not know. There is not a substantial market in mature timber. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether such a market can exist. I am advised that there are those seeking to find investments for pension funds, life insurance, and the like, who see some merit in this type of investment. However, we shall have to test the water to discover what the level may be.
We should consider the practical problems of selling even £10 million worth of land, which is what we have in mind for the first year. They are considerable. There are both the legal and physical sides. However, £10 million worth in the first year and £15 million worth in the next two years is the answer to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). That is the programme that we have embarked on.
The future will depend on whether the private sector turns out to be interested and on whether a sensible market develops. Of course, confidence will be involved. It is no great secret that the price of certain small roundwood dropped by one-third last year. That will have a substantial effect. If the price rises again there may be greater interest. It would be most unwise to stand here prophesying the future level of such an unexplored market.
There is a misapprehension about imports. Whether wood A is owned by the Forestry Commission now and at some future date by an insurance company or by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will not make any difference to the amount of timber grown in the United Kingdom. I hope that those of my hon. Friends who are interested in forestry matters will bear in mind that the Forestry Bill is a small part of the package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced before Christmas.
Confidence is the key to this business. I am not an expert forester but I have learnt a great deal during the Bill's passage. However, I entirely respect the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. Confidence is involved. The sale of some Forestry Commission land is but a small part of the overall picture.
As for the statement, two things really matter. First, I refer to the Government's avowed intention to proceed with forestry. That intention was made clear. Secondly, despite the advice of a Select Committee, the Treasury was prepared to make it clear that the tax concessions necessary for the private investor in forestry would be maintained. Without that there would have been a substantal deterioration in confidence. I am happy to say that the rate of application is surprisingly rewarding. am hopeful that we have established, or at least maintained, confidence in the private sector in a way that the Labour Government did not.
The right hon. Member for Craigton asked about the proceeds of sales. What happens is clear. The money goes into the forestry fund. Under clause 2, with the agreement of Ministers, it can then be transferred into the Consolidated Fund. We must be realistic. Since 1919 Government money has been pooled for the purpose of creating this great asset. It was always envisaged that a dividend would be paid at some point in the future. It was envisaged that as the trees matured, were felled and sold, money would be returned to the Exchequer.
Of all people, my hon. Friends must be acutely aware of the pressure that every Minister is under to ensure that he exercises the greatest economy within his Department. We have tried to dissociate forestry as far as possible from the pressures of the Treasury. Although the Forestry Commission comes under a Government Department, the enterprise bears more resemblance to a nationalised industry than to a bureaucratic office. When the Government place constraints on the commission it is difficult for it not to comply with them. The commission wants more and more men in order to fell the trees that are reaching maturity. The operation of the financial arrangements will dissociate the commission from the Treasury rather than associate it with the Treasury.
Mention has been made of a bipartisan approach. We are bringing forward the date on which some of the taxpayers' money will be returned, although this is a time of great national stringency. Although I sympathise with the fears that my hon. Friends have expressed I hope that they will accept that we have set out with the best of intentions for the whole of forestry. They should look upon this as a small part of an overall package.
I have taken close note of the fears expressed not only during this debate but during the passage of the Bill. I shall certainly give consideration to strengthening assurances in any way. However, I can give assurances only for my period of office. Given those remarks, I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that the spirit of their amendment is in the Government's mind. We intend that the industry should take its rightful place as a productive part of Britain's national heritage.

Mr. Hardy: I had not intended to speak until I heard the Minister's comments. Someone should comment on the matters that he raised. He suggested that it was time for some return to be provided by the Forestry Commission. He referred to its establishment in 1919. In many respects that is a long time ago, but in terms of the lifetime of trees and of the cycle of forestry operations it is meagre.
The Minister referred to the commission as a great asset. Indeed, I value it. However, he overlooks the fact that only 8 per cent. of the land surface of Britain is covered by forest. In addition, only 83 per cent. of that 8 per cent. is exploitable, which means that apart from Ireland and Iceland a smaller proportion of our land is afforested than that of any other Western European country. We are dependent on imports. Therefore, the Government's vision is limited.
Instead of this pettifogging procedure there should be a promotion of expansion on a bipartisan basis. Encouragement should be given to both the private and the public sector in order to meet the acute need that will arise. The Minister is aware that the world's forests are being

cleared at a rapid rate. In most tropical areas of the world millions of hectares of forest are cleared every year. Indeed, they are being cleared in such a way as to sterilise the land.
If the Minister has done his homework—I recognise that he has great and wide-ranging responsibilities—he will be aware that by the end of the decade countries such as ours will be in a bad way. It is already obvious that in every year between 1985 and the 2000 the balance of payments cost of our timber deficiency will greatly exceed the cost of importing all our food. The Minister pointed out that because of the recession this year's roundwood market may have fallen. However, if this country is to remain an industrial Power large quantities of timber will have to be imported. The Minister's arrangements are not satisfactory.
The Minister seems to believe that the Treasury is entitled to take £10 million from the Forestry Commission this year, £15 million next year and £15 million the year after that. The Treasury should be reminded that it is not omniscient. Some hon. Members will recall the Treasury's interference in forestry in 1972. Certain Conservative Members remember that, because they shared my misgivings. In July 1972 the Treasury brought out a cost-benefit analysis. It produced a forestry policy document that suggested that there was no role for commercial forestry. A few weeks later the Russians increased their timber prices substantially and knocked the Treasury's policy firmly on the head.
The Treasury has already demonstrated that it takes too short-term a view. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have gone too far along that road. I urge him to ensure that the comments of his right hon. Friend the Minister are accurate. Although it is possible that this money should not be taken from the Forestry Commission, the Minister should ensure that it will at least be completely devoted—with a great deal more besides—to ensuring that we meet more of our requirements in the 1980s, if not before. The national interest suggests that the time scale required for growing a tree should be considered to a greater extent than it has been today.

Mr. W. Benyon: I emphasise our strong understanding of the motives of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that they are sincere. We have heard much about the mortality of Ministers. We must look further ahead. We cannot look simply over the next year; in forestry we must look a long way ahead. In view of what has been said, I have no other course but to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 279.

Division No. 128]
[6.29 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Cowans, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Crowther, J. S.


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'y S)
Davidson, Arthur






Davies, Ifor(Gower)
Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)


Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd)
Martin,M(G'gow S'burn)


Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)
Meacher, Michael


Dempsey, James
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dixon, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morton, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Eastham, Ken
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Edwards, R.(W'hampt'n S E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
O'Halloran, Michael


English, Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)
Parker, John


Evans, John(Newton)
Pavitt, Laurie


Field, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Forrester, John
Race, Reg


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)


Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)


Garrett, John(Norwich S)
Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Ginsburg, David
Ryman, John


Golding, John
Sever, John


Gourlay, Harry
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


Haynes, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)


Heffer, Eric S.
Stoddart, David


Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)
Stott, Roger


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Strang, Gavin


Home Robertson, John
Straw, Jack


Homewood, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Huckfield, Les
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Thorne, Stan(Preston South)


Janner, Hon Greville
Tilley, John


John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Johnson, James(Hull West)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jones, Barry(East Flint)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Lamond, James
Watkins, David


Leighton, Ronald
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)
White, Frank R.


Litherland, Robert
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Whitlock, William


McCartney, Hugh
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Woodall, Alec


McNamara, Kevin
Woolmer, Kenneth


McTaggart, Robert
Young, David(Bolton E)


McWilliam, John



Magee, Bryan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. Alex Pollock


Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Bell, Sir Ronald


Alton, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, Thomas(A'don)


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Biggs-Davison, John





Blackburn, John
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Hastings, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawkins, Paul


Bright, Graham
Hawksley, Warren


Brinton, Tim
Hayhoe, Barney


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heddle, John


Brotherton, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hill, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Tom


Bulmer, Esmond
Hordern, Peter


Burden, Sir Frederick
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Anthony


Cope, John
Kimball, Marcus


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Costain, Sir Albert
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, David


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman


Crouch, David
Lang, Ian


Dean, Paul(North Somerset)
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dover, Denshore
Lee, John


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Lester, Jim(Beeston)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Ian(Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John


Eggar, Tim
Luce, Richard


Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)
Lyell, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Farr, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st)


Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Fraser, Peter(South Angus)
Marten, Neil(Banbury)


Freud, Clement
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter(West Devon)


Greenway, Harry
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Monro, Hector


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moore, John


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M.(N'hampton S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)






Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Murphy, Christopher
Speller, Tony


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin


Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stanley, John


Osborn, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Page, John(Harrow, West)
Steen, Anthony


Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)
Stevens, Martin


Page, Richard(SW Herts)
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Parris, Matthew
Stokes, John


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, John(Oxford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Penhaligon, David
Thompson, Donald


Percival, Sir Ian
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, Barry
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)
Trippier, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


Proctor, K. Harvey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Raison, Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, B.(Perth)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn(Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Whitney, Raymond


Scott, Nicholas
Wickenden, Keith


Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Shersby, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Silvester, Fred



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Peter Brooke.


Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)



Smith, Dudley

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
`except for land acquired under section 24(2) of the Countryside Act 1968.
(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall affect the powers of disposal provided under section 24(3) of the Act of 1968.'

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in the schedule, page 2, column 3, leave out lines 10 to 12.

Mr. Millan: The amendment would put a restriction on disposals with specific reference to amenity land. It refers to section 24 of the Countryside Act 1968, under subsection (2) of which the Minister was given power to acquire on behalf of the Forestry Commission
land which in his opinion ought to be used for planting trees in the interests of amenity, or partly for that purpose and partly for afforestation, together with any other land which must necessarily be acquired therewith".

This is another attempt to put a restriction on the wide powers that otherwise will be available to Ministers for the disposal of land.
On Second Reading and in Committee hon. Members interested in forestry expressed concern that land essential for the maintenance of amenity might be sold by the Forestry Commission and that such land, which is used at present for tourism, recreation, and so on, might be in danger if the Bill were to be passed unamended.
6.45 pm
I am not too optimistic that the Government will accept the amendment, because they seem determined not to accept any amendment, however reasonably expressed and from whatever quarter it may come, which would restrict the unfettered right of Ministers to dispose of land. Such obstinacy is foolish and unnecessary. Even Conservative Members who do not disagree with the principle of wider powers of disposal being made available to the commission and to Ministers are concerned about certain land that may be disposed of. We have already discussed the Forest of Dean and other Crown lands.
The amendment specifically relates to land acquired under the 1968 Act for amenity purposes. I think that there is a general feeling on both sides of the House that it would be undesirable for such land to be disposed of and perhaps to disappear from use for amenity purposes.
This is a modest amendment. I hope that the Minister will not say that the drafting is not right, that it will be difficult to identify the land, and that there will be many problems if such land is excluded. The land is identified, because it is specifically provided for amenity purposes under the Countryside Act 1968. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will accept this modest amendment to limit the disposal of land about which there is considerable concern.

Mr. Wiggin: I should like to oblige the right hon. Gentleman by accepting the amendment, but there is a snag. As far as can be traced, no land has been specifically acquired by the Forestry Commission under section 24(2) of the Countryside Act 1968. Therefore, there would be little purpose in accepting the amendment.
I accept the spirit of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. In Committee, we dealt with the principles of access, amenity and other such matters, about which he rightly expressed concern, because they would be in the public's mind.
Sensitive woodlands will not be selected for the sales programme. If, for example, an insurance company were to purchase a wood, I cannot believe that it would be in its interest to conflict with the public in such a way as to get itself a bad name. If I were in the happy position of controlling such an investment I should seek to make the best of it for my company or employer.
The commissioners have powers under the Countryside Act 1968 to plant for amenity purposes land that is already in their possession. They have never needed to invoke the provisions of section 24(2) of the 1968 Act. If they were to do so, one might readily accept that it would be for a special reason. Having purchased land for a special reason, I cannot believe that they would wish immediately to sell it.
Although I cannot please the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that I have satisfied him that there is no necessity for the amendment.

Mr. Milian: The Minister having told me that there is no land in the possession of the Forestry Commission that falls into this category—which surprises me—obviously there is little purpose in pushing the amendment, because it would not bite on the land in which we are interested. Nevertheless, there is a real worry about amenity land. Obviously, this matter will not be dealt with here. I hope that the other place will fare better than we seem to have fared in getting some sense written into the Bill.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I had the good fortune a year or so ago to put a request to the Forestry Commission in Scotland to go to some of its amenity lands—the Queen Elizabeth Forest, just north of Glasgow, and other Forestry Commission estates there—to see to what extent it had sought, in the land under its control, to marry the interests of itself as a forester and the amenity of the Greater Glasgow and other areas. It would be unfortunate if, under the Bill, the work which the Forestry Commission has done so successfully in Scotland were to be harmed in any way.
Although the Minister made a point about insurance companies and said what he would do personally if he had control of a company to ensure that nothing was done contrary to the public interest as he perceived it, he surely cannot speak for a commercial organisation, whose prime aim would be to maximise its profits rather than to keep on good terms with the public.
There is a real problem here, and even if nothing has yet been done under the 1968 Countryside Act—I must be one of the few hon. Members here who served on the Committee on the Countryside Bill in 1968—I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit in which it is moved. There is real concern about the dangers to those areas which the Forestry Commission has earmarked, currently so successfully, for amenity purposes and I hope that the Minister—or perhaps a Minister in another place—can act sympathetically on the problem raised.

Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend has talked about Scotland. Is he aware that in South Wales, particularly in my constituency, this matter of amenity land and usefulness to the public has arisen, apart from the Bill, and we want to see that it is not interfered with?

Mr. Anderson: I take my hon. Friend's point. I should know the Welsh situation. I had a week or so in Scotland and I saw there the grand work done by the Forestry Commission, so that comes more immediately to my mind, but I know that in the constituency of my hon. Friend, in the Neath valley—which people praise as one of the most beautiful forested valleys in South Wales, in spite of the scars it bears—the same problem exists.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
`providing he gives any surviving previous owners of such land an opportunity to acquire it by private treaty sale'.
I do not want to detain the House for long. The purpose of the amendment is simple. On Second Reading I referred to those owners who had been obliged to sell their land to the Forestry Commission, particularly after the war. I am not talking of precise compulsory purchase, but many people did indeed sell their land under some duress, including some in my constituency. I suggested on Second

Reading that there should be some provision in the Bill whereby, if the land that those people sold were to be sold by the Forestry Commission, it should not necessarily be sold to the highest bidder but should first be offered to the original surviving owners by private treaty sale if they wished to acquire it.
That is the plain and simple purpose of the amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me a sympathetic reply. I am well aware that the wording of the amendment is deficient and that there may be difficulties in writing this precise provision into the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend will want to do it by means of a code of conduct, notes of guidance, or something like that, but I sincerely urge him to do something to ensure that if land were sold under duress, or not entirely willingly, and were offered for sale by the Forestry Commission, those original owners should have the chance to buy it and it should not merely go on to the open market and be sold to the highest bidder.
Those of us who have the interests of rural areas and the countryside at heart are concerned about this matter and do not believe that the highest bidder will necessarily be the best owner and custodian of the land in the future. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to show that he has taken this point and to tell the House what he intends to do about it.

Mr. John Farr: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). His interest in these matters is well known and enables him to speak with great authority. What he says appears to be only common sense. However, there are two points which I fear would raise difficulties if his amendment were accepted.
First, if what my hon. Friend proposes were put into effect, how would such a valuation be arrived at? The sums involved would probably be very large and it could not go to the district valuer. Presumably my hon. Friend has in mind a form of arbitration, rather like the arbitration for agricultural rents, but it appears to me that there should be at least two valuations to enable a fair and appropriate figure to be reached, so that the public interest is seen to be properly respected.
The second cause of my hesitation in supporting the amendment is that it may not be worded exactly as my hon. Friend intended. As it reads, a number of surviving previous owners might have an opportunity to acquire the land by private treaty sale. I see that what my hon. Friend really intends is that the immediately preceding surviving private owner should have that opportunity.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I accept what he says. What I mean and what I think most people would understand—I apologise if it is not clear—is that if an owner has sold land to the Forestry Commission and that owner is still alive, he should be given the opportunity to buy it back from the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interpretation, which makes the matter much clearer.
With those two qualifications, I fully support what my hon. Friend is trying to do. I feel sure that the Government are likely to support it as well because it seems to me to be a matter of common and equitable sense and justice.

Mr. Wiggin: I am aware that my hon. Friend has been exercised about this matter for some time. He raised the


point on Second Reading. I indicated in my reply on that occasion that I was extremely sympathetic to what he wanted to do.
The difficult problem is that there is a code for the sale of Government-owned land, and much of this goes back, of course, to the Crichel Down affair and all associated with that. The procedure whereby surplus Government land can first be offered to the former owner was introduced in 1954. It applied only to agricultural land acquired since 1934 for which no development had been allowed. Former owners could repurchase at current market value as assessed by the district valuer, if they still owned adjoining land or were farming in this country.
These arrangements have recently been reviewed and on a provisional basis are now being applied, with certain exceptions, to freehold agricultural and non-agricultural land and property which was originally acquired under threat of compulsion, provided it has not materially changed in character since acquisition. In the case of agricultural land, the operative date remains 1934, but for other land the procedure is limited to purchases in the 25 years before the property is offered for sale.
A material change in this context includes a change from agricultural land to forestry plantations, which means that moorland, for example, which the commission has acquired and planted does not come within the rules. The commission only ever acquired one property under its compulsory purchase powers, although I accept that some owners may in the distant past have had regard to the fact that those powers were in the background when they decided to sell. In all events, the commission will be following the new rules.
I think that I should comment on two points which my hon. Friend made. First, the proposition that the Forestry Commission should sell land not necessarily to the highest bidder will not, I know, appeal to the accounting officer. I am no expert on the stringent rules under which accounting officers must administer public funds, but those principles cannot be breached in a Bill of this nature. To do so would be to breach the policy adopted by all Governments, for obvious reasons.
On the whole, the Forestry Commission is staffed by country people. Their reputation and their knowledge of their own areas are well known. In the programme of sales as envisaged, they will not wish to tread on anyone's toes; they will go out of their way to avoid doing that. Therefore, I am convinced that in the circumstances which my hon. Friend described they will as far as possible seek out former owners and make sure that they are aware of the sales.
I am taking note of the pressures that have arisen during the passage of the Bill for some of the concerns that have been expressed to be met in more tangible form. I shall certainly consult my fellow forestry Ministers to see whether, by written instruction or in some similar way, these matters can be put into writing if not into legislation, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, for the reasons that I have stated.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive and helpful reply. I acknowledge the amendment's deficiencies and I have no intention of

forcing a second Division. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his qualified support and sincerely hope that it will be possible for some form of words to be devised.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although this is a short Bill it has provided the House with the opportunity for the first substantial debate on and review of forestry for many years. It is reasonable to say that frequent reviews of such a long-term industry are unnecessary, but perhaps the House will not wish another 30 years to go by before again considering the subject.
The Bill has, in particular, focused attention on the work of the Forestry Commission and the considerable contribution that it has made and continues to make to the industry since its establishment over 60 years ago. I am sure that the commissioners have been gratified by the remarkable degree of good will that has manifested itself on both sides of the House and, indeed, was evident in another place during a forestry debate on 23 February.
I view the commission's future place in the industry and in the Government machine as being secure. It cannot be said too often that we see its partnership with the private sector as crucial to the future of forestry. The Bill is intended to enable the Commission to help the other half of the partnership—the private sector—to make its contribution more effectively.
The heart of the Bill is clause 1, which provides Ministers with the power to sell land. The operation of that clause will be under the direction of the Commission and it has already started planning in the expectation that the Bill will reach the statute book. I assure my hon. Friends who are concerned about this provision that the modest proposals are being looked at carefully and that each conservator is looking at his contribution as part of the whole.
We strongly deny that we are asset stripping or seeking to destroy the Forestry Commission. At a time of great national stringency it is surely unreasonable that this vast accretion of public wealth—whether it is £800 million, £1,250 million or more—that has accumulated in the 60 years should continue to receive annual Exchequer assistance of the order that it has been receiving without some contribution, and the Bill is that contribution.
I made it clear during the Second Reading debate that the Government would impose fairly strictly certain factors in connection with the sale of land. I shall not detain the House for long, but I feel that I should once more remind hon. Members of those factors, not necessarily in order of importance. They are: financial considerations; the maintenance and development of the wood processing industry; the maintenance of employment and the viability of local communities, especially the socially fragile areas; the use of forests for public access and recreation; the interests of conservation, research and education; the effects on management; the market preferences having regard to other criteria; and, lastly, the rationalisation of the Forestry Commission's own estate. If it is possible to stick within those guidelines none of the fears expressed by hon. Members should be realised.
The main purpose of clause 2 is to direct that receipts paid into the forestry fund should, to the extent authorised by Ministers, be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.


The way in which this is expressed has led some of my hon. Friends to the mistaken assumption that this is a Treasury Bill. It is no more than a technical or accounting device, which will protect the commission from the problems that might otherwise be associated with fluctuations in receipts in what is bound to be an uncertain and even volatile market.
The Bill is an essential ingredient of the forestry policy statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 10 December last. It will provide the commission with the opportunity to operate more flexibly in the commercial environment of which, by virtue of its steady development as a producer of industrial raw material, it is increasingly becoming a part. It will not impair either the range of its activities or its role as the forestry authority. It represents no more than a technical measure to enable the partnership between public and private woodland owners in the expansion of the nation's forestry resources to function more effectively as the commission advances towards the achievement of greater financial self-sufficiency.
I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Milan: The Minister said that we do not often debate forestry in the House. It is a pity that when we do it has to be on the basis of such a miserable little Bill as this. I shall of course be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
Despite all the Minister's protestations, the genesis of the Bill is the Treasury. The purpose is to save money. It has nothing to do with the encouragement of development or expansion of forestry. Yet hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken an interest in the Bill on Second Reading and subsequently have emphasised the need for forestry expansion.
The background to the Bill is that the funds which are to be made available to the Forestry Commission for the acquisition of plantable land for new planting have already been cut and will be cut more severely over the next few years. To add to this injury that is being done to forestry, which everyone agrees is an efficient operation, the powers granted by the Bill are to be used to dispose of certain Forestry Commission land.
Virtually no one has had a good word to say of the Bill. There has been no welcome for it in the House. Even the private forestry interests who might have been expected to welcome a Bill of this nature have been at best sceptical of it and in some respects fearful about the intentions behind it, particularly if it were to be used—it could be, as the powers are completely unqualified—to dispose of a substantial part of the Forestry Commission's enterprise.
The wood processing industry, the paper industry and similar industries have expressed considerable scepticism about and, indeed, antagonism towards the Bill. Despite the efforts made to introduce more flexibility into the Bill and to impose certain restrictions on the otherwise unfettered powers given in the Bill, the Government have not moved an inch. They have not accepted any amendments to the Bill. We have received ministerial assurances. These are cheap to give. Ministers can always give an assurance that if matters are left to them, particularly the present incumbents, who are always men of good will, or believe themselves to be so, no one has any need to worry. I do not believe that this is the way to write legislation.
There is undoubtedly widespread concern about the powers of disposal. The way to assuage that concern, even if the Government are determined to press ahead with such powers, is to write safeguards into the Bill. However, they have been unwilling to write any safeguards into the Bill to prevent land suitable for forestry going out of forestry and to prevent the disposal of amenity land, even Crown land such as the Forest of Dean. They have been unwilling to provide safeguards in regard to continued opportunities for access to, and recreation on, forest land.
A number of reservations and concerns about the B ill have been brushed aside by Ministers on the ground that hon. Members can rely on the good will of Ministers and the good sense of the Forestry Commission. At the end of the day, the Forestry Commission will act as the servant of the Government, as it must. That is its role. To talk about the discretion and the good sense of the commission is meaningless if the Government—perhaps this is such a Government—are determined to use the powers in the Bill to the fullest extent to dispose of a considerable part or, indeed, the whole of the forestry enterprise. It is a great pity that the Government have gone along this road.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the fact that forestry in the United Kingdom has been a bipartisan matter to a considerable extent. I do not mean that there has not been a considerable difference of view at different times about the level of forestry expansion. There has been a general acceptance, however, of the role of the Forestry Commission and also of the partnership between the commission and the private sector.
A good deal of what I have described is put at risk by this miserable Bill. It is brought forward because of the Government's doctrinaire obsession with the sale of public assets and the reduction of the PSBR. It has no forestry justification. For that reason, the Opposition will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: (Bury St. Edmunds): I have followed the progress of the Bill by reading the Standing Committee debates. If the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) thinks that the Bill is friendless, he is mistaken. I believe that it is a good Bill. I believe that the Government are right to introduce it. It is entirely consonant with the programme on which the Government were elected. I only wish that Ministers in other areas had gone down the same road as vigorously as have my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend.
I have a constituency interest. Thetford Chase is by far the most productive forest in the country. It exceeds the Scottish forests at this time because most of the trees planted about 20 years ago are coming on stream. We have a productive and attractive forest. I pay my tribute to the Forestry Commission, which, over the years, has done a good job in looking after the timberland, harvesting it and providing employment for a number of my constituents. Following a certain amount of pushing, the commission has opened up the forest in recent years for amenity and recreation purposes. My constituents and many of those living in the surrounding area are able to enjoy the amenities of the forest in a manner that was not previously possible.
My hon. Friend, together, perhaps, with the tenth member of the commission, who, I assume, will be capable of offering advice on the financial aspects of sales, will be welcome to come to Thetford Chase. My hon.


Friend can bring his picnic basket with him. He will be able to offer to those who support the Bill such advice as he and others may think useful about the manner in which some parts of the forest can be privatised along the lines of the partnership that he has so wisely proposed between the Forestry Commission and the private sector.
It is high time that the Government were removed from areas of our national life where they need not have an interest. It is urgent that we unlock some of the investment that is tied up in State assets and introduce a much more market-oriented, robust and private enterprise approach. I believe that the Bill will enable this process to go ahead in co-operation with the Forestry Commission and the private sector.
There has been a suggestion from the Opposition Benches that the private sector is not to be trusted with what hon. Members regard as a national asset. I can only speak from my experience in Norfolk and Suffolk. Not far from Thetford Chase, a monument to State enterprise which I commend, there has been the enormous achievement of the private sector in reclaiming the Breckland. My hon. Friend may be aware of the enormous achievements of private farmers in reclaiming the glacial sands of the Breckland and putting them into profitable agricultural use.
Not far away again are the chalk hills around Newmarket where, with the private help of the Jockey Club, land has been developed that is a credit to the private sector. These areas, adjacent to one another, demonstrate that the Forestry Commission—the public sector in the case of Thetford Chase—has done a good job while next door, in the Breckland, the private sector has done a good job. It is possible and highly desirable that there should be partnership. I commend my hon. Friend for pursuing that policy along the lines for which he and I were elected.

Mr. Hardy: I was surprised by the development of the speech by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). At first, he seemed to be critical of the Forestry Commission. Towards the end of his speech, he demonstrated his concern that there should be partnership. I believe that there is a good case for partnership. What concerns me most about the Bill is that it illustrates a meagre and inadequate approach by the Government. A recent Economic Forestry Group newsletter quoted in its front page story the opening remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he announced the Government's forestry policy in a statement just before Christmas. The right hon. Gentleman said:
A continuing expansion of forestry is in the national interest"—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1405.]
That is the criterion by which this wretched Bill should be judged. Will the Bill contribute to an expansion of forestry? If Conservative Members were honest they would admit that the Bill is largely irrelevant set against that fundamental need.
I have already indicated that 8 per cent. of the land surface of the British Isles is forestry. Eighty-three per cent. of that forestry is exploitable. This has to be set against the position in some other European countries-20 per cent. in Belgium, 30 per cent. in the Federal Republic of Germany, 27 per cent. in Italy and 25 per cent. in

France. When we look at the Russian satellites, we sce that despite the enormous resources of the Soviet Union, the figures are 36 per cent. in Czechoslovakia, 28 per cent. in the German Democratic Republic and 33 per cent. in Bulgaria.
By the turn of the century almost all the world's forests will have been cleared. When timber shortages become acute and when, therefore, the price of timber rises, we shall regret that the Government, in their commitment to the expansion of forestry, produced only a mouse of a Bill to shift some land from the public sector to the private sector. The public and private sectors should be encouraged to develop more effective, more tasteful and perhaps more successful forestry.
Two other issues require attention. The Bill does not deal adequately with them. I refer to the question of employment in rural areas. One of my constituents who is extremely experienced and highly qualified in forestry recently returned from a visit to Scotland. He professed his concern and horror at the inadequate management of the forests that he visited. Hon. Members who have been on forestry visits will be aware of the excellent examples in Scotland. However, large areas of forest in the British Isles are not adequately managed. It is about time that the Government encouraged more skilled and productive forestry activity.
I have referred to the private sector's newsletter. I commend the description of high-yield forestry systems applying in Tacoma in Washington State, in the United States. It would be desirable if some of our forests were managed in the way illustrated in that article. If they were, it would promote not only more productive forestry activity but useful and perhaps relatively substantial employment in rural areas, especially where employment needs to be created. I am not talking about thousands of jobs. In sparsely populated regions where forestry is important, just a few extra jobs could bring life to communities whose existence is in peril because of lack of economic and employment opportunity. It is a pity that when nearly 3 million people are unemployed the Bill does not deal with that matter.
If Britain is to be given the capacity to avoid excessive reliance on increasingly costly timber imports, a better Bill is needed. I hope that we shall divide the house on Third Reading because the Bill is small-minded. I hope that the Government will re-examine the matter and take the longer, more civilised and sensible view that is demanded by the national interest.

Mr. Roger Thomas: At the last Committee sitting of the Bill we discussed new clauses 4 and 5, which dealt with amenities and access, and the stock-proofing and vermin-proofing of areas between farm and forestry land. There was a fair amount of cross-party argreement on new clause 4 dealing with amenity and access. Indeed, the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) said that he would support the Opposition in pressing the clause to a Division. However, we were disappointed not to have the hon. Gentleman supporting us today. He prognosticated that the Government would make a move to accommodate hon. Members on all sides who believed that the Bill was restrictive.
I am also disappointed that no move was made in relation to new clause 5. We benefited from the great experience of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howell)


who is a noted hill farmer in Wales. He said that stock-proofing and vermin-proofing should be differentiated. He said that the Bill could be strengthened by dealing with stock-proofing, which would prevent discontent and disharmony among foresters and farmers.
However, I am disappointed that even at this late stage the Minister has not moved an inch. The Government have not allowed a comma to be changed. They have not changed the emphasis, let alone allowed the insertion of a clause or an amendment. The Committee involved dogged resistance by the Minister. We are disappointed.

Mr. Home Robertson: This is called the Forestry Bill. What exactly does it contain? It contains a clause for the disposal of land, a clause for tinkering with the forestry fund and a third clause providing for an additonal forestry commissioner. We understand that he is to be a super-salesman; a special Government asset-stripper to carry out the provisions of clause 1 and get rid of some of the land.
The Minister said that he had nothing but good will for the Forestry Commission. That was not the message that we received in Committee and on Second Reading. We had the impression that the Minister had the same good will towards the Forestry Commission that I hope I shall have for my dinner in a few minutes, in that he and the Government simply want to devour a successful public enterprise.
The Bill has been changed not an iota since it was published. The Minister has stood like a fossilised tree, totally oblivious to the economic, forestry and conservation arguments advanced against the Bill from all sides. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) say that he was a wholehearted supporter of the Bill. To my knowledge only one other hon. Member has announced such support—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). If anyone deserves credit for the Bill it is the Government Whips for delivering it in the face of almost unanimous opposition.
I hope that the Government will not have such an easy time when the Bill arrives in the other place. Tory Back Benchers in the House of Lords are a little less docile than the hon. Members with whom the Whips have to contend here.
The Minister spoke of a modest proposal for selling Forestry Commission land. He spoke of tapping the vast "accretion" of public wealth. The Bill provides a curious way of doing that, since it is clear that the Forestry Commission will be required to sell land relatively cheaply. At the same time it will be required to buy land which is relatively expensive because there will be a sellers' market. That cannot make economic sense, even from the Treasury's view.
Clause 1 states that:
The Minister may dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section.
If that is a modest proposal I should hate to hear an ambitious one from the Minister. It is tragic that we have been unable to insert any qualifications. In view of that I hope that this House or the House of Lords will throw out clause 1.

Mr. MacLennan: I shall not detain the House for long, because the inadequacies of the Bill and the confined nature of its operative clauses are such that a Third Reading debate is inevitably confined.
The hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and Rother Valley (Mr. I-lardy) legitimately lamented the fact that the Bill does nothing for forestry, and I concur with those laments.
It is a sad commentary on the Government's attitude to forestry that they have nothing more constructive to bring to the House than a Bill that is designed to enable the Minister to dispose of forestry land, and to require payment out of the forestry fund into the Consolidated Fund of such sums as he may from time to time direct—a purpose that clearly has nothing to do with the interests of forestry. It is designed to meet the exigencies of the economic situation over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presided with such unparalleled incompetence. The Bill also seeks to add one member to the Forestry Commission.
What a lamentable comment on the Government's attitude to forestry. However, it encapsulates one of the reasons why the Social Democratic Party has come into being. We profoundly believe that it is highly inappropriate to the welfare of the country's economy that the frontier is constantly changed between private and public enterprise. We believe that industry needs stability and security. It is presisely this kind of legisaltion, designed to interrupt the continuing developmemt of an industry that has enjoyed a degree of stability for over half a century, that has led many people who are actively engaged in forestry to support us in our belief that a Social Democratic Party is needed at this time. The Government have injected uncertainty into forestry policy where none previously existed. The Bill has few friends, and when it is considered in another place by people who have experience of both private and public sectors I hope that it will be demolished, as it deserves.

Mr. Mark Hughes: The puerile remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in using the Bill in an attempt to adduce the need to create a Social Democratic Party is beneath contempt.
My feelings about the Bill are encapsulated on page 45 of the Government expenditure White Paper. Indeed, I offer it to whichever Minister is to reply to the debate. In that White Paper the Government treat forestry with such contempt that they get the figures upside down. Moreover, the Government do not consider that a printer's error matters. They want to perpetuate a printer's error in policy and introduce a method of acquiring Treasury money as part of deep Tory policy.
The Bill totally fails to meet the requirements of the pulp industry. It will not help the balance of payments. It does nothing for the private forester or for the national Forestry Commission afforestation programme. The Government pay such scant regard to that major element of national policy that they allow a foolish printer's error to go through.
I entirely accept that there is an error on page 45. It is nothing more and nothing less. However, it epitomises the cavalier way in which the forestry industry is treated by a Government who are intent upon a minuscule reduction


in the public sector borrowing requirement. For doctrinaire and ludicrous reasons, the Government are doing a major mischief to the Forestry Commission and its planting programme, to the private sector of the forestry industry, to amenities, forest parks, and all users of forest land. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friend's will vote against this ludicrous little Bill.

The Secretary of State For Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The concentration of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) on a printer's error shows the emptiness of some the opposition to the Bill. He knows very well that the Bill is a much more important matter than that.
The Bill has to be seen against the background of the general statement that I made in December about the Government's commitment to a firm future for forestry—something that the industry has been wanting for a long time. As I made clear in that statement, we have committed ourselves to a continuing level of planting on the same scale as has happened in recent years. We have firmed up the taxation arrangements for forestry, which were in a state of uncertainty and disarray, and which acted as a major disincentive for people to plant. We hope that those actions, together with the Bill, will inspire confidence in all those who are involved in the industry.
I want to emphasise something that has not been said often enough in the debate, namely, that forestry is an industry. The Forestry Commission is rightly admired for the work that it does. It has had a highly successful history, and I know that it will be successful in the future. However, we are debating an industry. Perhaps the disposal powers in the Bill will be seen in their proper perspective if we ask ourselves what other industry has no right to dispose of assets for which it has no requirement. At present the commission does not have that right. There is a gap in our legislation. It is a right that a great industry should have and use sensibly.
My hon. Friend stressed repeatedly in Committee that the Government intend that these powers will be used in a sensible and controlled way by the commission. The commission will decide what parcels of land are to be disposed of. Both my hon. Friend and I have spelt out the way in which it will use the powers.
Anyone who hopes that forestry will have a secure future can be assured that the Bill, taken in conjunction with the statement that I made in December, will give the industry the future that it requires. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will receive wholehearted support.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 208.

Division No. 129]
[7.38 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Sir Ronald


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, Thomas(A'don)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Best, Keith


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Biggs-Davison, John


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Blackburn, John


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Blaker, Peter


Banks, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas





Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bowden, Andrew
Heddle, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Henderson, Barry


Bright, Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hill, James


Brotherton, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Browne, John(Winchester)
Hooson, Tom


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John(Ravensboume)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Butcher, John
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Clegg, SirWalter
Lamont, Norman


Cockeram, Eric
Lang, Ian


Cope, John
Latham, Michael


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cranborne, Viscount
Lee, John


Critchley, Julian
Le Marchant, Spencer


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim(Beeston)


Dean, Paul(North Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian(Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Loveridge, John


Dover, Denshore
Luce, Richard


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Lyell, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Eggar, Tim
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairgrieve, Russell
Madel, David


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Major, John


Farr, John
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marlow, Tony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
Marten, Neil(Banbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mates, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawby, Ray


Fox, Marcus
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Peter(South Angus)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Peter(West Devon)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Hector


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)
Morgan, Geraint


Grist, Ian
Morris, M.(N'hampton S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Murphy, Christopher


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam,John
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.






Osborn, John
Squire, Robin


Page, John(Harrow, West)
Stainton, Keith


Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Richard(SW Herts)
Stanley, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Steen, Anthony


Parris, Matthew
Stevens, Martin


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Patten, John(Oxford)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Pawsey, James
Stokes, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Donald


Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Raison, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal)
Trotter, Neville


Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)
Walker, B.(Perth)


Roberts, Wyn(Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Royle, Sir Anthony
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Watson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Wickenden, Keith


Shepherd, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Silvester, Fred
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Smith, Dudley
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speed, Keith



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)
Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)



Sproat, Iain





NOES


Adams, Allen
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, G.(Islington S)


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd)


Atkinson, H.(H'gey,)
Deakins, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Dempsey, James


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Donald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dobson, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Dormand, Jack


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, R.(Whampt'n S E)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)


Cartwright, John
Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
English, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cook, Robin F.
Evans, Ioan(Aberdare)


Cowans, Harry
Evans, John(Newton)


Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toofg)
Field, Frank


Crowther, J. S.
Flannery, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)





Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)
O'Halloran, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John(Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Parker, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Ginsburg, David
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Grant, John(Islington C)
Race, Reg


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robertson, George


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, J. W.


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)


Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Ryman, John


Home Robertson, John
Sandeison, Neville


Homewood, William
Sever, John


Hooley, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Huckfield, Les
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy(Newport)
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)


Janner, Hon Greville
Snape, Peter


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Soley, Clive


John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, James(Hull West)
Stallard, A. W.


Johnston, Russell(Inverness)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda)
Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isies)


Jones, Barry(East Flint)
Stoddart, David


Jones, Dan(Burnley)
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)


Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)
Thorne, Stan(Preston South)


Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, R(Colne V)


McElhone, Frank
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Watkins, David


McKelvey, William
Weetch, Ken


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Welsh, Michael


Maclennan, Robert
White, Frank R.


McNally, Thomas
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


McNamara, Kevin
Whitehead, Phillip


McTaggart, Robert
Whitiock, William


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)
Williams, Rt Hon A(S'sea W)


Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)


Martin,M(G'gow S'burn)
Wilson, William(C'try SE)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Woodall, Alec


Meacher, Michael
Woolmer, Kenneth


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Young, David(Bolton E)


Mikardo, Ian



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)
Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Allen McKay


Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)



Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Criminal Attempts Bill

As amended (in the Special Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 5

Offences of attempt under other enactments

'(1) Subsections (2) to (5) below shall have effect, subject to subsection (6) below and to any inconsistent provision in any other enactment, for the purpose of determining whether a person is guilty of an attempt under a special statutory provision.

(2) For the purposes of this Act an attempt under a special statutory provision is an offence which—

(a) is created by an enactment other than section 1 above, including an enactment passed after this Act; and
(b) is expressed as an offence of attempting to commit another offence (in this section referred to as "the relevant full offence").

(3) A person is guilty of an attempt under a special statutory provision if, with intent to commit the relevant full offence, he does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of that offence.

(4) A person may be guilty of an attempt under a special statutory provision even though the facts are such that the commission of the relevant full offence is impossible.

(5) In any case where—

(a)apart from this subsection a person's intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to commit the relevant full offence; but
(b)if the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded,
then, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, he shall be regarded as having had an intent to commit that offence.

(6) Subsections (2) to (5) above shall not have effect in relation to an act done before the commencement of this Act.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Bought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Mayhew: I acknowledge the daunting appearance of so large a batch of amendments. However, it is not nearly as bad as it appears. Indeed, one amendment has the laudable effect of removing two subsections from clause 6. The amendments are designed to remove from the scope of the Bill offences which are triable only summarily, and to make consequential changes. The law at present, although this is not absolutely certain, is generally held to preclude a charge of attempt in respect of a summary offence except where the attempt itself is specifically penalised by statute.
It is clear from the Law Commission's report that sound arguments may be adduced both in favour of and against a general provision which would make it an offence to attempt to commit a summary offence. These arguments are set out clearly in the commission's report. The commission concluded that on balance, and primarily in the interest of consistency, there should be a general provision of this sort. However, its working party had earlier come to the opposite view, in which it was supported by the Law Society.
In Committee the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) questioned the Law Commission's conclusion and rightly drew our attention to the contrary view that had been expressed by Professor

Glanville Williams in the early stages of our proceedings in Committee. Professor Glanville Williams was of the opinion that there is no social need to extend the punishment of attempt outside the class of serious crimes.
The Government have given further thought to this matter. We believe that the arguments are finely balanced. In the absence of clear evidence we do not think that there is need of such an extension. There is not a sufficient case to warrant such an extension of the criminal law. We have concluded that on balance we prefer the view of the working party, which considered that the amount of time that may be spent in magistrates' courts considering complicated questions whether there has been an attempt to commit a minor offence may be out of proportion to the advantage accruing from allowing the law to intervene at an early stage. Therefore, the inclusion of the words—I speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 13—
as an indictable offence
and the deletion of clause 5(3) remove summary offences from the scope of the Bill. This means that it will continue not to be an offence to commit a summary offence.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. and learned Friend repeat that sentence? Did he say that it would not be an offence to commit a summary offence?

Mr. Mayhew: It will not be an offence to attempt to commit a summary offence. If I left out "to attempt", I am grateful for the opportunity to put that right.
The remaining amendments are all consequential on this change. They deal with existing offences of attempting to commit summary offences, created by particular statutes, which were to have been repealed as being superfluous. As a result of the change they are superfluous no longer.
The schedule is rather complicated. The assumption originally was that the law governing all criminal attempts would be dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, separate provisions for attempts to commit statutory offences already on the statute book ought to be repealed. However, the Bill will no longer apply to attempts to commit summary offences if the new clause is carried. Therefore, it is right to leave references to summary attempts on the statute book, as it is not our purpose to make far-ranging changes in the criminal law unnecessarily. Therefore, amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are deleted from the repealing schedule. However, we still need to repeal the provisions dealing with indictable attempts to commit statutory offences and any general provisions on offences of attempt and how they should be tried, hence the surviving portions of the repealing schedule.
The removal of the references to the Deer Act 1963, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Official Secrets Act 1920 stem from what I have just said. Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act applies both to summary and indictable offences under that Act. Strictly, it needs to be retained only for the sake of the former, but any attempt to apply the provisions of the Bill to indictable offences under the Official Secrets Act and to leave summary offences of attempt to be dealt with under the Act would produce a clause of great complexity to nobody's advantage. The removal from the repeal schedule of the Official Secrets Act provision leaves all attempts to commit offences under those Acts to be dealt with under


those Acts, and makes it possible to simplify the Bill by removing subsections (1) and (2) of clause 6, which would be necessary if the repeal were made.
Finally, there is the new clause and its accompanying amendments. These are designed merely to ensure that the specific statutory attempt provisions which will remain, and any which might be created in future, will be interpreted according to the same principles as attempts under the Bill. These provisions apply not only to existing statutory attempts but to any which might be created in future—for example, by means of downgrading an offence triable either way to one triable summarily only and specifying that an attempt to commit it remained an offence.
This is a sensible and simplifying group of amendments, although it may not seem to be as simplifying as it appears on the Order Paper. I commend the clause and the amendments to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister of State for that lucid explanation of the purpose of the new clause. I doubt whether I am the only hon. Member who still has some doubts about its effects. The general purpose covered by this group of amendments is one which the Opposition wholeheartedly welcome—that is, to make it impossible as a general rule to charge a person with an attempt to commit a summary offence.
The Minister said that as the law stands, before the Bill goes on the statute book, it is not possible to charge with attempt in the case of a summary offence. The Law Commission in its report, which is the basis for this Bill, was, I think, slightly more cautious. On page 55 it said:
in the case of attempts, it seems probable that at present, in the absence of specific provision, an attempt to commit a summary offence is not itself an offence.
There appeared to be, at least in the mind of the Law Commission, some doubt about the present law on this point, and that doubt is being removed as well as the fact that we are taking a policy decision one way or the other by means of these amendments. As the Minister said, the working party of the Law Commission took a contrary view.
The reasons why the Law Commission seemed to disagree with its own working party were two. First, it said on grounds of consistency that it should be possible to charge an attempt to commit a summary offence as it is possible to charge an attempt to commit an indictable offence. Secondly, it said that the distinction between a summary and an indictable offence was a shifting distinction; indeed, we shifted that distinction quite markedly a few years ago. It said that the distinction was not one which could be equated with the distinction between a trivial and a serious offence. Upon that ground the Home Office initially favoured the view of the Law Commission.
In Committee I said on behalf of the Opposition that I had an open mind on the question of making the amendment, but in the light of discussion in Committee and the Minister's explanation of his position while we were all thinking aloud I opined the view that the discussion of the matter and the Minister's speech had led me to think that my amendment was wiser than I thought when I first tabled it. I was fortified in that view by the fact that Professor Glanville Williams, in giving evidence to us, had been emphatic that there was no need to extend criminality to attempts to commit summary offences. In

Committee we were all sure that we did not want to have the possibility of an attempt to commit the new summary offence of interfering with motor vehicles. That fortified us in the general conclusion that we should cut out attempts to commit all summary offences.
8 pm
Therefore, our conclusion is that it is best to make the change advanced by the Government. In Committee the Minister said, in giving a reason why it might be better to keep the possibility of attempts to commit summary offences:
The police and prosecuting authorities will not wish to add to their burdens by charging people with attempts to commit summary offences unless there are good reasons for doing so."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 February 1981; c. 238.]
I think that that statement must have been based more on hope than on confidence, because we have found an the past, not least on the "sus", that charges are brought in circumstances which many people feel do not justify a charge. It would not be right to rely too much on prosecutorial discretion, even in respect of a provision in a Bill, a large part of which relies on prosecutorial discretion on the issue of impossibility on attempts.
The Minister did not refer to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about Northern Ireland. He asserted that the law in Northern Ireland specifically permits a charge of attempt to commit a summary offence. I do not know whether that is so, but it is a point worth raising. If it is so, it could be argued that as there is greater control over prosecutions by central authorities in Northern Ireland, that is a reason for tolerating the situation in Northern Ireland, even if we are not prepared to tolerate it in England and Wales.
Even if we got our system of Crown prosecutors—as recommended by the Royal Commission recently—in England and Wales, it would surely be wrong to rely too much on prosecutorial discretion. It would be better to tidy up the law so that everyone knew where he stood. On those grounds the Opposition welcome the change.
I now come to the other part of the package of amendments and new clauses. I am reminded of the delightful remark of Sir Henry Skinner to our Special Standing Committee on another issue—that the confusion was clear. The Minister referred to the offence, mentioned in the schedule, under the Deer Act. As I understand it the Minister is saying that the provision—for example in the Deer Act—specifically allowing a charge of attempt to commit a summary offence should be retained on the statute book. Similarly, that applies to the Conservation of Seals Act and the Official Secrets Act
.
The Official Secrets Act is an important matter. We shall not discuss "moles" tonight; we have enough complications with deer and seals. On the face of it, If we are deciding, as a general rule, that one should not be charged with an attempt to commit a summary offence, is there anything so special about doing something wrong about deer and doing something wrong about seals which makes it desirable to sustain the possibility of a criminal offence in attempting to commit an offence under those Acts?
Have the Government explicitly and clearly addressed their minds to those two offences and decided consciously that they want to maintain the possibility of attempting to commit a summary offence in those cases? I thought that


I saw the Minister shaking his head at that point. Unless there is an overwhelming case—the Minister has not stated a case—for preserving the criminality of an attempt to commit a summary offence in those cases, I hope that we shall wipe them out as we are wiping out all the other attempts to commit summary offences.
The Minister moved a new clause on special statutory provisions. I am still baffled to know why the new clause is necessary. It seems to take those provisions in statute law where an attempt is specifically provided for by statute and to apply to those statutory attempts the three points which appear in clause 1. If that is the purpose, I should have thought that the most natural way of doing it was simply by redefining the words
an offence to which this section applies
rather than by introducing a new clause. I suppose that the effect would have been the same, but it would have been more obvious in its meaning if we had gone about it in that way.
The Minister should give an indication—not necessarily a complete list—of what he is pleased to call the special statutory provisions and what one could call attempts otherwise provided for in statute. He should give an indication of what offences are included in that definition which will be subject to the new clause rather than to the provisions of clause 1 as it stands.
It would have been much more convenient for all of us to have dealt with those points in Committee, but we accept that that was not possible, because in Committee we were clearing our minds on the question whether we wanted criminality for attempts to commit summary offences. Although we are dealing with the matter on the Floor of the House, some clarification of those technical points is in order. However, on the main policy point, we strongly welcome the effect of this group of amendments.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) referred to one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, who said that the confusion was clear. May I say with affection to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that his clarification was confusing to me? No doubt he will be able to set my mind at rest.
I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the lapidary phrases which he used in Committee, when he said:
It is common ground to the Committee that there should be a criminal offence of attempting to commit a criminal offence. The mere fact that one has not got as far as fulfilling the criminal intention and completing the offence ought not to save one from criminal liability."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 February 1981; c. 239.]
Those sentences lie at the heart of the Bill.
In my very brief remarks I want to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he can apply the effect of his amendments and his new clause to two or three specific cases that the police witnesses indicated to the Committee.
I should declare an interest. As the House knows, I have a connection with the Police Federation. In this case the federation did not give evidence to the Committee.
The two specific cases that I have in mind are the ones that were alluded to by the Metropolitan Police in their evidence, and thereafter in the case put by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Perhaps, to refresh my hon. and learned Friend's memory, I may quote the cases that they have in mind.
The Metropolitan Police said this:

 'B' "—
the initial of a person's name—
stands in a crowded area at a bus stop. A female standing nearby is holding a shopping bag containing property including a purse which is clearly visible. 'B' spends some time watching and when a bus comes the woman goes towards a crowd which forms around the platform. 'B' approaches from behind and places himself behind the woman just as she removes the purse from her bag. 'B' immediately withdraws taking no further interest.
He has, one might suppose, been foiled by her action.
He crosses the road and stands by a bus queue for buses going in the opposite direction and repeats his actions in respect of two other women. In each case they seem to be alarmed and remove purses from their shopping bags."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 February 1981; c. 138.]
By so doing, of course, they have made it impossible for him to commit an offence. The Metropolitan Police then go on to say:
Neither of these incidents are catered for under the existing or proposed law regarding attempt.
They made their case—with which I disagree—that that is a reason for retaining "sus" on the statute book.
I said in the Second Reading debate that in my judgment "sus" should go, but I urged at the time—and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in replying to the debate, went some way towards satisfying me—that if "sus" is to go, the law of attempt should be changed so as to fill the gap created by its abolition.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend very politely whether he is satisfied that the Bill, with his new clause and amendments, will be able to deal with example "B" as put to the Committee by the Metropolitan Police.
My second example was put to the Committee in the evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In many respects this is perhaps a much more relevant practical example. In its memorandum the association said:
A member of the public looking out of his bedroom window at 2 am sees a man approach a row of terraced houses opposite. He pauses at each front door and front window of three houses and appears to examine them to see if they are secure. At this point a motor vehicle approaches and the man conceals himself in a recessed doorway until the vehicle has passed. He then examines the exterior of another house before walking away and disappearing from view into a side street. The watcher decides to call the police, but before the arrival of the police the man returns and appears to examine houses on the opposite side of the street. On the approach of a pedestrian he again conceals himself and emerges later to examine a further house. At this point the police arrive and the watcher explains to the police what he had seen. The officer questions the man who denies any intention to commit a crime but says he has lost his way".
The crucial point is that
inquiries show he has four convictions for housebreaking and is suspected of, crime locally; the officer must now tell his informant"—
that is the member of the public who has complained about what he has seen—
that the man has done nothing which makes him liable to arrest. The suspect's actions, whilst they would fall within the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, will not amount to an offence if the suspected persons law is repealed, nor would they constitute an offence under the Bill.
That is the example given by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
I do not wish to pursue this argument. The various arguments have been listened to in Committee. I want only to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he believes that the Bill, with his amendments, will enable the police to act in cases of that sort. If it will not, the anxieties expressed by the Metropolitan Police—and, indeed, by the


Association of Chief Police Officers—will be widely shared by members of the public, who are increasingly the victims of this kind of offence.
I have one other quotation from the evidence given before the Committee, where the Association of Chief Police Officers drew attention to the comments of the Prosecuting Solicitors' Society on the draft Bill. I suspect that all hon. Members, whatever view they take about the Bill, will share the view of the society that
Controlled police intervention is preferable to members of the public taking the law into their own hands if the police are powerless."—Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 February 1981; cc. 147–8.]
8.15 pm
That is what worries me very much. If, in the circumstances of the two hypothetical cases that I have put before my hon. and learned Friend, the member of the public who has complained to the police is fearful that a would-be house breaker—a would-be thief—cannot be dealt with, arrested or charged by the police because Parliament has altered the law, there is a very real possibility of some members of our society taking the law into their own hands. That would be highly regrettable.
That is why I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to say that as a result of his amendments being accepted, as I am sure they will be—namely, that with the abolition of "sus" we should not open a gap unfilled by the reformed law on attempts which this Bill seeks to produce—the public will not be left exposed and the police left powerless in cases of the kind that I have described.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hate to make things awkward for my hon. and learned Friend, who has conducted these historic and fascinating proceedings from start to finish with very great skill and ability. Those of us who have also been concerned in this matter from start to finish must be filled with admiration for the way in which he has conducted himself and the case for the Government. But we are—I hope he will forgive me for pointing this out—in danger of making our law very muddled-looking and illogical.
There was presumably a time when one could attempt to commit every inchoate offence. Now we have got ourselves into a position where, under the Criminal Law Act 1977, it is an indictable conspiracy to agree with others to commit a summary offence. But under this measure one cannot attempt to commit a summary offence. We have got ourselves into the position where an attempt to commit a summary offence is no offence in England and Wales but is an offence in Northern Ireland. That seems similar to the position into which we have got ourselves in the Bill, whereby if one completes a series of acts there may be no crime but if one attempts to commit a series of acts which one thinks may end up in a crime there is a crime.
From the point of view of the public, who must understand our legal system, we are in danger of becoming lopsided in choosing what shall or shall not be an offence. We are distorting what I suggest is a more balanced and simple view of the law, in which consistency is one of its virtues. That is somewhat philosophical, I admit.
I turn to a second reason for my doubts about the sense of what we are doing here. The Law Commission working party which considered this decided, albeit tentatively, that all three inchoate offences—conspiracy, incitement and attempt—should be treated in a similar way, so that

an attempt to commit a summary offence would in itself become an offence. Having come to that conclusion and worked the matter out, the working party's conclusions were considered by the Law Commission itself. The Law Commission considered the arguments advanced for the attempt to commit a summary offence not being an offence. They are set out on page 55 of the Law Commission's report, and I shall not weary the house by repeating them. The report states, on page 56:
While acknowledging that there is force in some of these arguments, we have concluded that consistency in this context would be preferable. An attempt may fall little short of the completed crime and, in such instances, the defendant's conduct may be almost as serious as if he had been successful; this consideration applies with equal force to summary and indictable offences.
The report continued—this had been the main objection to having as an offence the attempt to commit a summary offence, and the main argument relied on by my hon. and learned Friend—
We do not think that there is a real danger of a needless proliferation of charges of attempt to commit summary offences … there are other summary offences in which it seems desirable that a charge of attempt should be available.
That is when we came to talk in Committee about offences relating to the protection of birds and animals.
The report makes the further point that a number of offences which had previously been triable only on indictment had been shifted to the lower category of being triable only summarily. There was, as it were, a growing tendency to take offences out of the triable by jury category and to put them into the summarily triable category. Therefore, the more such offences were taken to the summary court and out: of the jury category. the less sense there was in taking attempt out of the legal system for summary offences.
It must be remembered that there is substantial pressure due to the time taken in processing criminal trials. I hope that no one will conclude from the time that I take making my arguments in the House that I take as long in court. There will therefore be a tendency, which was resisted in considering many of the recommendations of the James report, to shift more offences now triable on indictment to the magistrates' court. A new situation will therefore arise in which we shall increasingly have to ask whether we did right to do away with the offence of attempting to commit a summary offence.
The Law Commission therefore concluded:
Having regard to these considerations, we do not think there are compelling reasons for a conclusion differing from that which we adopted in regard to conspiracy, and therefore recommend that an attempt to commit a summary offence should itself be an offence.
We have the views of the Law Commission, the working party and what I believe is the logical balance of our criminal law, all in favour of keeping the attempt to commit a summary offence as part of the criminal calendar.[Interruption.] Page 55 of the report shows clearly that the working party tentatively came down in favour of retaining attempt to commit the three inchoate offences as criminal offences. Whether I am right or wrong about that, I am certainly right about the second case, if not about the first. Having considered the matter, the Law Commission certainly came down in favour of keeping attempt to commit a summary offence.
I know that I am a voice crying in the wilderness. I do not intend to embarrass my hon. and learned Friend by voting against the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that perhaps


not enough thought has been given to this matter. I appreciate that Professor Glanville Williams thought that it was a waste of time having the offence of attempt to commit a summary offence, and that he is one of the leading criminal jurists if not the leading criminal jurist of our generation. But that does not make him right in every case. I hope that the Government will look at this again before the matter is finally disposed of, on the basis that on this occasion the Law Commission was right, the working party may have been right, and there is some sense in keeping a consistent approach to all three inchoate offences and thus removing the stigma of the illogicality of making distinctions for no valid reason.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for the careful speeches that have been made on this group of amendments. I shall seek first to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He asked why it was proposed to delete the Deer Act and the Conservation of Seals Act from the schedule. He also asked why, if we are deciding that there should be no liability for an offence of attempting to commit a summary offence, these offences should be retained under those Acts.
8.30 pm
In Committee the hon. Gentleman dwelt on the importance of this proposition. We have taken care to ensure that the Bill will not make unnecessary changes of any substance in the criminal law. The two statutes to which he refers are statutes in which Parliament thought it right to provide that a summary offence shall also carry liability for attempting to commit it. That is in conflict with the generally held state of the common law, namely, that there is no liability for attempting to commit an offence which is triable only summarily.
We now propose not to change that state of the common law, contrary to the recommendation of the Law Commission, which was arrived at only by balancing many considerations. Equally, we propose not to change the state of the statute law which Parliament previously thought it right to introduce. That is why those offences are being preserved.
We propose to leave the Official Secrets Act as a code of its own. It would have been possible to have constructed an elaborate clause which would have made an exception of the one summary offence which the Official Secrets Act contains—all the other offences being indictable. However, that would have been quite needlessly complicated, and m the interests of clarity and simplicity we prefer to leave the Official Secrets Act as a code of its own.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why, if we are wiping out all the other attempts to commit summary offences, we are proceeding in the way that we have proposed in the schedule. With respect, that is not an accurate way of putting it. We are not wiping out the other summary offences. There are no summary offences, other than the statutory ones contained in the schedule, for which, under the existing law, it is possible to be liable for attempting to commit them. That is not a beautiful piece of syntax, but I hope that my meaning is clear. Accordingly, and unusually for the hon. Gentleman, that point was not accurately expressed.
The hon. Gentleman stated the objective of the new clause, which is to apply the principle set out in clause 1 to those offences already on the statute book which carry liability for attempt. I sympathise with his view that this could have been drafted more simply. However, I am advised that greater simplicity is not capable of being achieved commensurate with the necessary clarity that we require in statute. I am advised that for technical reasons it is necessary to draft the new clause in this way. I am afraid that we can do nothing about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) kindly told me that he had an appointment which would prevent him from staying for my answer to his questions.
He referred to what he said in Committee when I set out the general principle by which we were guided. I stand by that principle, which I explained as follows:
It is common ground in the Committee that there should be a criminal offence of attempting to commit a criminal offence. The mere fact that one has not got as far as fulfilling the criminal intention and completing the offence ought not to save one from criminal liability."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 February 1981; c. 239.]
I agree with that. The shorthand label that we have attached to it is the "dipping" offence. For example, a person may put his hand into someone's pocket intending to steal whatever there may be in it but discover that it contains nothing. We all believe that the failure to complete the full offence should not save that man from liability for criminally attempting to steal. The Bill fulfils that principle. However, with respect, that proposition has nothing to do with the new clause or the group of amendments under consideration.
I was asked for my opinions about the examples quoted from the evidence given by the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In both cases, the law of "sus" would have enabled a prosecution to have been brought, but a prosecution cannot be brought under the law of attempt. It is more usual for such a scenario to arise in enclosed premises, because a person is much more likely to get away with a nefarious purpose in enclosed premises. The section of the Vagrancy Act that makes it an offence to be found on enclosed premises is not affected by the Bill and will remain available.
My comments on the example given by the Association of Chief Police Officers also apply to the first case. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 would enable the police officer in such cases to arrest the person on suspicion of being about to commit an arrestable offence. Therefore, it is not right to say that the policeman would have to tell the householder that he was sorry that there was no ground on which he could arrest the chap. I hope that I have dealt with those points.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the kind compliment that he paid me. He has never succeeded in embarrassing me by any of his contributions. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into great detail. However, he was right to say that there will be a discrepancy between the way in which the law treats the offences of conspiracy and incitement and the way in which it will treat the offence of attempt. It is possible to charge someone with attempting to conspire. However, if the Bill is amended that will not apply in the case of attempting to commit a summary offence. Conspiracy always involves more than one person. As my hon. Friend will know, if more than one person is involved


in a criminal offence it has always been thought that that added to its severity. That applies particularly to conspiracy.
In my opening remarks I tried to explain why we believe that this is a pretty finely balanced judgment. Ultimately, we were persuaded that there was an unnecessary risk that magistrates' courts would be bogged down because in a significant number of trivial cases they would have to go into the structure of the law of criminal attempt—which is far from easy.
It is no accident that common law has always held hitherto—or so it is generally believed—that attempt does not lie for a summary offence. That has probably been a sensible rule. Professor Glanville Williams was probably right to say that there is no social need to extend it. The decision has not been easy, because consistency is always attractive. However, on the balance of considerations we felt it right to adopt the view that Professor Glanville Williams took for the reasons set out clearly in the working party's report. Indeed, those reasons are also referred to in the Law Commissioner's report. At length, we felt it right to come down on the side of these amendments. Therefore, I hope that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and of the rest of the House on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) complicates the proceedings, but if it would assist I should be happy to move amendment No. 1 formally, although it is not one that I support. That would allow us to take the proceedings in a logical order and we could discuss that amendment and Government amendment No. 12 together, as we expected to do.
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "merely".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am in the hands of the House. Amendment No. 12 will be moved in due course when we reach it, but as amendment No. 1 has been moved formally we shall discuss with it amendment No. 12.

Mr. Mayhew: I am happy to speak to amendment No. 12 but I do not want to take up time speaking to amendment No. 1. This is a minor but none the less useful amendment, the substance of which was suggested by Professor Smith in evidence that he gave in the Special Standing Committee and which has the Law Commission's support. The Law Commission is content with the provision that we have just discussed.
Clause 5 abolishes the offence of attempt at common law. It is possible that there exists at common law a separate offence penalising certain acts of preparation. In the 1966 case of Gurmit Singh it was held, following a number of nineteenth century decisions, that it was an offence at common law to procure a rubber stamp, which bore the realistic legend "Magistrate First Class Jullundur", with intent to commit forgery. It is unclear whether that case and its predecessors are simply examples of attempt in which liability has been imposed by the court at an unusually early stage of the defendant's activities, or, on the other hand, whether they are specific offences at common law. If the latter, they would not be abolished by

clause 5(1) and it might therefore be possible for a court to rely on them in certain special cases to convict a defendant who had not proceeded beyond a preparatory act. That would be contrary to the principles of the Bill. Thus, the amendment abolishes any such specific offences as may exist. The amendment is proposed out of what the courts call an abundance of caution, but it is sensible and I hope that it will have the support of the House.

Mr. Cunningham: The Opposition welcomes that cautionary amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 6, after `Wales', insert 'as an indictable offence'.

No. 7, in page 2, leave out line 15.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 2

APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 31[Clause 2] at end insert—
`(ee) provisions conferring a power of seizure and detention of property;'.
The amendment repairs a minor omission in the list of procedural and similar provisions in clause 2(2). The purpose of the clause is to ensure that where specific procedural or other provisions of the kind set out in the clause apply to an offence they should also apply to an attempt to commit that offence. Thus, paragraph(g) ensures that any power of forfeiture applies to art attempt as it applies to the full offence. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the same is true of any power to seize and detain property.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

TRIAL AND PENALTIES

Amendments made: No 9, in page 3, line 11, leave out `summary or'.

No. 10, in page 3, line 18, after `it', insert
`or an attempt under a special statutory provision'.

No. 11, in page 3, line 24, at end add—
'(3A) Where, in proceedings against a person for an attempt under a special statutory provision, there is evidence sufficient in law to support a finding that he did an act falling within subsection (3) of section(Offences of attempt under other enactments) above, the question whether or not his act fell within that subsection is a question of fact.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 5

EFFECT OF PART I ON COMMON LAW

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 8, leave out `is' and insert
`and any offence at common law of procuring materials for crime are'

No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 17 to 20.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 6

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART I

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 4, leave out lines 21 to 38.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2) of section 70 of the Army Act 1955, section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (all of which relate to civil offences)—
(2A) For the purpose of determining under this section whether an attempt to commit an offence is a civil offence, subsection (4) of section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (which relates to the offence of attempt) shall have effect as if for the words 'offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales as an indictable offence' there were substituted the words 'civil offence consisting of an act punishable by the law of England and Wales as an indictable offence or an act which, if committed in England or Wales, would be so punishable by that law .'.
This is simply a technical amendment. It is designed to overcome a difficulty that the Bill might cause in relation to the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Each of these statutes makes provision for the trial by court martial of any person subject to service law who commits a "civil offence", which means an ordinary criminal offence as opposed to a specifically military one, such as having one's hair too long. "Civil offence" includes any act which, if committed in England, would be punishable under the law of England. At present, therefore, it includes the common law offence of attempt. Once this Bill becomes law, however, it is possible that it would be argued that a soldier who, say, attempts to steal in Germany is not guilty of a civil offence because he is not attempting to commit, as specified by clause 1(4), an
offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales".
Theft committed outside the territory is not so triable. By replacing this part of clause 1(4), for the purposes of Armed Services law, with a simple reference to a "civil offence", this argument is precluded.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 4, at end insert—
'(3A) In section 12(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 the reference to an offence under that Act includes a reference to an offence under section 1 above of attempting to commit such an offence'.
This amendment, which is technical in nature, corrects an omission from clause 6. Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs 1971 empowers the Secretary of State to give a direction imposing restrictions in respect of the prescribing of controlled drugs on practitioners convicted of offences under the Act. At present section 19 provides that an attempt to commit such an offence is itself an offence under the Act, so a person convicted of tempt would be liable to a direction under section 12. Under the Bill, however, section 19 will be repealed and attempts to commit offences under the 1971 Act will become offences under clause 1. Consequently section 12, with its power to order restrictions, would not apply in respect of them.

That power ought to be applicable. This amendment ensures that a section 12 direction may be given in respect of a conviction of an offence under clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: Perhaps I can pursue this a little to make sure that I have clearly understood it. Do I take it that the position is that a substantive offence under the Act is an offence under the Act and an attempt is an offence under the Act, but that in future an attempt to commit an offence under section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will be an attempt under a combination of that Act and the Bill, and therefore will not be caught by the words
an offence under this Act
in the 1971 Act?
I am sure that I have expressed that question less clearly and helpfully than the answer with which the Minister anticipated it, but have I got it about right? I see the Minister nodding. On that basis, I think that the amendment is acceptable. I wonder, then, whether the Home Office has done much homework in order to ascertain whether there are any other cases like that which might give trouble in future.
Secondly, may I take it that the substance of this point is approved by the Law Commission?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman, in his own engaging words, has got it about right. The importance of this clause is that section 12 confers these special powers to give restrictive directions, and it is important that that should be maintained. The effect of the clause is to ensure that reference to an offence under the 1971 Act includes a reference to an offence under section 1 of attempting to commit such an offence. That is because, as the hon. Gentleman says, an attempt to commit a misuse of drugs act of this type becomes an offence under clause 1. It is important to keep these restrictive powers, and that is what the amendment is all about.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

INTERFERENCE WITH VEHICLES

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 11, leave out Clause 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 5, line 27, leave out from `to' to end of line 29 and insert `a fine not exceeding £400'.

No. 4, in page 5, line 27, leave out from `to' to `a' in line 28, and Government amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 23

Mr. Cunningham: We come now to far more important aspecs of the Bill than those that we have just been considering. This group of amendments really embraces three different subjects and questions. First, should the new offence of interfering with a motor car be put on the statute book at all? Is there any need for it? Secondly, if it is, ought that offence to be one for which a penalty of imprisonment can be awarded? Thirdly, should this offence be one that may be committed only in a public place, or should it be commitable anywhere at all? I should like to take these points in reverse order.
The term "public place" is differently defined for different purposes on the statute book but in Committee we


ensured that in the Bill the reference in the clause to "public place" meant a place where the person in question was a trespasser at the time. It is worth remarking that a similar offence that already exists on the statute book—namely, the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1972—may be committed in a public place or in a parking place provided by a local authority.
I made the point—and we moved an amendment in Standing Committee to achieve this—that if we are, unfortunately, to have this offence, it is arguable that it should apply to the offence not only when it is committed on a public street but when it is committed, in particular, in a car park or, let us say, on a council housing estate. This is because, if the offence is to exist at all, residents on a housing estate are going to be very puzzled to know why it can be used if their car is parked on the street but not if it is parked in a supposedly more secure position within the estate boundaries.
I think that in Committee we were generally in agreement that such an extension would be desirable, and we bothered ourselves mainly about where the line should be drawn. On the whole, I would prefer to draw the line short of a private driveway, so that a local authority car park in the middle of a town used for shopping purposes, a car-parking space on a council estate, a car-parking space in a private block of flats, and the like, would be included but a small private driveway would be excluded.
I accept that there is a logical difficulty in justifying that line and almost certainly a practical difficulty in defining it. Therefore, with some hesitation we have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do, if we are unfortunately to have this offence, is to allow it to be an offence that can be committed in any place.
The second issue is whether the offence should be one in respect of which a sentence of imprisonment may be awarded. We are trying to cut down the prison population. Ministers fall over themselves—I will not say bullying the judges but trying to influence judges and benches either not to award custodial sentences when at the moment they do, or to award shorter sentences. Given that we are sure that the offence should not exist, we are thereby sure that if it does exist it should not be possible to award a sentence of imprisonment.
In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) said that interference with a motor vehicle is an offence that is not triable by jury, and that there will be some temptation on the police to bring a charge under this offence rather than a charge of attempted theft, for example, to avoid jury trial.
We all know—especially those of us who have the stipendiaries of London to deal with—what a difference there can be in the chances of conviction before a London stipendiary, before a jury, or, for that matter, on appeal in the Crown court. So there is a case for saying that there should be some disincentive against the police using this new offence too much, and such a disincentive might be the non-availability of a custodial sentence under it. Then, if the police felt that they wished to expose the charged person to the possiblity of prison, they would have to go for the more serious charge of attempted theft, which is what they always should do if the actions that they say they have observed are ones that could conceivably justify that charge. On those general and specific grounds we do not

believe that the new offence of interference with a motor vehicle is one that should be imprisonable, and we have tabled an amendment to that effect.
Our view is that the offence of interference is not needed. "Sus", the offence of loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence, was, even 156 years ago, an aberration in English law. It was contrary to proper principles of law as much then as it is today. Indeed, in some respects one would have thought that there would be more opposition to it in the middle of the nineteenth century than there is today.
Britain is an extremely conservative country in that kind of thing. Once something gets on to the statute book we are lucky if we manage to get it off after 156 years. If we put this new interference offence on the statute book, my prediction is that it will be there 156 years from now, and we shall never know what life would have been like without it. Almost certainly life would have gone on without it in very much the same way. I shall have a suggestion to make to our colleagues in the House of Lords as to what they might be able to do about it. Unfortunately, I thought of it too recently to be able to table an amendment here.
9 pm
The new offence is a great deal better than it was as it stood when the Bill first appeared. We have tightened up the burden of intention, which the prosecution must show. The Law Commission, in its thorough consideration of the law of attempt, indicated many times that it felt that criminality should not extend too far back from a completed criminal offence. It said that on those grounds the general law of attempt should not apply to actions too remote from the final act and that if Parliament wanted to extend further away from a clear, final offence, Parliament ought to lay down the limitations. The Law Commission report implied clearly that Parliament should be extremely cautious in doing so and that it should do so only on overwhelming grounds, where certain preparatory behaviour was so dangerous to society that we wanted to make that preparatory behaviour a criminal act even though it would not be a criminal act under the general law of attempt.
On those grounds, the Opposition feel that no case is shown. There is no case that the Minister made on Second Reading or in Standing Committee to justify the putting of this offence in the place of "sus". The Select Committee, which recommended that we get rid of "sus", suggested that there was no need to put an offence in its place. The Committee was almost unanimous in its report. I am aware that the Minister is now looking up the part of the report that mentions that the one gap that could be left was that of interfering with car doors, and the like. There is, however, no point in repealing something if one fills the totality of the gap that is left. The Select Committee's advice was to take it away and not to replace it except with the general law of attempt. The Committee was writing at a time before the Law Commission produced its report.
Our proceedings in Committee revealed confusion among some witnesses about the difficulties that could arise if the police were not able to bring a charge of this nature. Some of that confusion was reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It seems to be suggested that if the police see somebody doing something suspicious they have to be able either to charge him with an offence or at least arrest him. One


often says that the police can arrest under the Criminal Law Act. This was stated by the Minister a few moments ago.
The Opposition maintain that what the police should do in those circumstances is to wait and see whether the man does the thing. I believe that this is what the police normally do. If the police see somebody who looks as if he is about to break into a house and the behaviour is not so clearly criminal as to justify a charge, they will normally hang around and wait to see whether he does it. That is the correct alternative to this kind of offence, rather than bringing a charge in respect of behaviour that is, at most, preparatory, and, at its most innocent, subject as much to innocent interpretation as to guilty interpretation.
On those grounds, the Opposition believe that it would have been better at least to enjoy life without the offence of interference with a motor vehicle for a while to see whether we suffered. The suggestion that I make to our colleagues in the House of Lords is that they should table an amendment to say that the clause will come into force only at a date to be declared by the Minister.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Would not the enjoyment be entirely that of the criminal classes?

Mr. Cunningham: That is what we are trying to find out. It is always best to "suck it and see." It is best not to put laws on to the statute book unless they are clearly necessary. It is best not to invent crimes unless they are necessary. We shall not know whether this crime is necessary unless we have life without it for a little while.
Even people who believe that the retention of this offence is highly desirable do not regard it as the most important thing in the statute book. It is at the end of the spectrum. It is not an attempt to commit a criminal offence. It is very low down indeed in the criminality spectrum. So let us see what it is like without it first. We may not need it at all. Once a law is on the statute book, if it is removed before 150 years that will be a record. I suggest to our colleagues in the House of Lords that they should invent an amendment whereby the offence comes into force only when the Minister declares a day. I hope that the Minister will then leave it for a while and declare a day later, when we can see whether it is necessary.
On those grounds we shall vote for amendment No. 2 to delete the new offence of interference with a motor vehicle. If, unfortunately, we are unsuccessful in that attempt we shall vote for amendment No. 4, to make the offence non-imprisonable.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for the clear way in which he moved his amendment. I am responsible for a number of amendments in the group and it may be helpful if I say something about them now.
I am grateful for the hon. Member's recognition that if we are to have the new offence of motor vehicle interference it should apply wherever the vehicle is found. We believe that the new offence contained in clause 8 is a useful crime-fighting tool for the police.
The hon. Member asks why we should not enjoy life without "sus" and not put anything in its place. Anyone who reads the police evidence to the Committee and takes note of the high proportion of cases in which "sus" is used against motor vehicle interference will believe that there

is not much enjoyment to be gained for people whose cars are interfered with, who have articles stolen from their cars, or whose cars are taken and driven away or stolen. That is why, having paid attention to the evidence about the high incidence of opportunist street crime against vehicles, we believe that we cannot leave the gap unfilled.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that there was no point in abolishing a law if we intended to fill the gap completely. However, we are not filling the gap completely. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the illustrations given by the police in their evidence. I had to tell them that the gap was not fully filled in the particular and specialised circumstances to which he referred. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Act is available but there is no substantive offence to take the place of "sus" in such circumstances.
One has to strike a balance. The Government believe that the weight to be given to the adverse consequences of keeping "sus" on the statute book is greater than the advantages of having a substantive offence that would meet the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred. We are not filling the gap completely.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I am sure that the Minister will accept that, in one respect at least, the new offence goes wider than the existing "sus" offences. Under existing legislation two separate occurrences have to happen whereas under the new offence simply trying one car door will be sufficient to cause an offence. Could not the Minister at least amend the Bill so that there must be two separate acts before an offence can be deemed to have been committed?

Mr. Mayhew: Personally, I believe that the offence is narrower than "sus", because it requires the proof of specific intent—one of the three theft-related offences—whereas one of the great bones of contention about "sus" was that it did not require any intent. People often complained that they had done nothing. In that regard, therefore, this offence is very much narrower.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about having to commit more than one offence, the matter was dealt with by one of the distinguished police officers who gave evidence, Sir Philip Knights. He said that he did not envisage any prosecutions being brought unless at least two actions had been observed. He thought that that was the way the police would operate. In other words, he thought that a single handling of a car door handle would never form the substance of a prosecution.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman cites with approval the evidence of Sir Philip Knights, the chief constable of the West Midlands. If he approves of that, why does he not put it in the Bill? It is certainly not sufficient for him to say "We have made the offence in the Bill, but we have been given an assurance by chief constables that they will exercise the discretion widely." That is not an acceptable way in which to legislate.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not saying that one cannot visualise circumstances in which it was so abundantly clear that the interference with the motor vehicle was carried out with the intention of committing one of the theft-related offences that it would not be sufficient to proceed on one act of interference alone. That is why I resist the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
In Committee we changed the offence considerably. I shall say a word on the subject, because it is important. A number of hon. Members on both sides argued that the clause could be improved if it included a specific requirement that the prosecution should have to show that an act of interference was carried out with criminal intent. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) raised this subject on Second Reading. Those hon. Members who served on the Special Standing Committee will know that the Government paid careful attention to those criticisms and tabled an amendment, which the Committee accepted, to introduce such a requirement.
The origin of the clause is to be found in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on "sus". The Committee specifically drew attention to the difficulties that arose in charging an attempt in the case of interference with parked motor vehicles when it was not clear precisely what the individual concerned intended to do. That passage is to be found at paragraph 37 of the Report. The Committee said:
There is evidence of some confusion in the law of attempt. This arises particularly in cases where;(a) it is unclear exactly what offence was being attempted—for example, when a person attempts to enter a locked car and it is not known whether he intended to steal it, to drive around in it, to sleep in it or to steal from it;
Virtually everyone who has considered these matters has acknowledged that the difficulty of the law of attempt it that in prosecuting one has to specify which particular offence the accused person was trying to commit. It is very difficult. Magistrates have to ask themselves whether they are satisfied that it was offence A or whether it was perhaps offence B. If it might be offence B they cannot be satisfied that it was offence A. Therefore the prosecution has to fail.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Government have found the solution to that problem—and a very obvious solution it is—in the amendment to clause 8, which the Government tabled in Standing Committee. They say there that the intention that needs to be proved is an intention to do one of the three specified offences, and it does not need to be shown which of the three offences it was intended to commit.
Equally, one could rely on the law of attempt but provide that in the case of an attempt to do any one of those things it would be sufficient to satisfy the court that the person was attempting to do one of those things even if it could not be shown which of the three he was attempting to do. In other words, the proximity to the completion of the offence would remain the same as what is required for the law of attempt, but there would be the qualification that in this case there did not need to be proof of attempting a specific offence but one of three, four or even five offences.

Mr. Mayhew: The evidence of the police officers in particular establishes the need for an offence of interference with a motor vehicle. The suggestion that a police officer should wait and see what happens does not reflect the realities of policing. If we followed the suggestion, much more time would have to elapse, and we should be faced with the difficulties that everyone acknowledges, however one formulates the offence of attempting to commit a criminal offence, of proximity or more than a merely preparatory act. Anyone who studies the police evidence in particular will acknowledge, having

regard to the high prevalence of opportunist street crime concerning motor vehicles, that there is need for an offence of interference. That is why the Government are right to retain the provision, which is a valuable addition to the statute book.
The discussion of the provision in Committee, with particular reference to the police officers' evidence, confirmed that it was necessary to establish such an offence. It is important to bear in mind the evidence that a significant proportion of "sus" cases concerned interference with vehicles. The witnesses also emphasised the importance of thefts of and from vehicles in the overall crime figures. The latter is all too well known to those who live in urban areas. Those who oppose the creation of a new offence argue that such activities can be dealt with by other means, but their arguments do not sufficiently address themselves to the reality of the problem.
It is suggested that we should give it a try without the provision and see how we get on, but we should not be seen to be discharging our responsibility to the public if we took away a statutory offence that has been used substantially to prosecute people for interfering with motor vehicles and did not put anything in its place, because we wanted to wait and see. In these days of increasing crime, we should not be considered to be particularly careful of our duties if we adopted that blithely confident approach.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The clause-heading is "Interference with vehicles". The Minister sometimes uses the word "vehicles" and sometimes "motor vehicles". Why should the provision apply only to motor vehicles and not, for instance, to bicycles, when bicycle thefts are increasing? The heading "Vehicles" would cover bicycles and motor vehicles, if the clause has to remain in the Bill.

Mr. Mayhew: Bicycles get stolen, and without straining the logic of our philosophy the provision could be extended to bicycles, boats and other forms of conveyance. We have not done so because it has been impressed on us that the main area for such crime is motor vehicles. If the hon. Gentleman presses us hard, the provision might be extended elsewhere, although we have been anxious to confine the clause. "Sus" has not been used to an appreciable extent to deal with possible bicycle thefts, although it may have been in university towns. I do not know.
Finally, I come to whether the offence should be punishable by imprisonment. If we did not have the power to imprison, there would be no means by which magistrates could make a convicted person the subject, for example, of a community service order. That is important If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk:) is concerned, as we all are, not to have unnecessary custodial sentences, it would be a great mistake to close the door to the making of a community service order or a detention sentence order. Such orders can be made only in respect of imprisonable offences. The appropriate method of dealing with persistent offenders may be by way of custodial orders.

Mr. Clive Soley: It is important to be technically correct. It is merely a Home Office recommendation that a community service order may be imposed as an alternative to imprisonment. I think


that the Minister will find that I am right in saying that a number of courts use such orders in respect of nonimprisonable offences and are within the law in so doing.

Mr. Mayhew: Distant though I am from the source of wisdom in these matters, I am told that I am right and the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If I find that that is incorrect, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge my mistake.
I think that the Government are right in not accepting the amendments, which would prevent magistrates' courts from imposing sentences of imprisonment in proper cases, important though it is that no unnecessary sentences of imprisonment should be brought about. I paid attention to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who is not in the Chamber today, about applying a disincentive and the fear that the police would prosecute under this provision because otherwise they would risk a jury trial. I do not think that his proposal is the answer to determining this issue.
We are discussing a useful crime-fighting tool that has been made much more effective by reason of the evidence to which we listened in Committee and by the changes made in Committee. Having fashioned that tool, there is no reason why we should deny to the police the ability to use it on private premises or in council car parks and restrict its use to public places. I hope that the House will support the Government's view.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am sorry that the Minister chose to answer the debate before it had really been opened. That is an unusual procedure on Report. I support the amendment, which seeks to delete clause 8, mainly on the ground of the unnecessary imprisonment of offenders and because the new offence of interference with a motor vehicle, which is created by clause 8 as amended in Committee, requires an intention to commit an offence of theft or of taking and driving away.
The danger of the clause as it stands arises from the difficulty of deciding what was or was not in the mind of the accused. I shall quote from the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee entitled "Race Relations and the `Sus' Law", the Bill being to some extent derived from the report. In commenting on the present suspected person offence the Select Committee stated:
A conviction depends on the court's judgment as to the subjective intentions of an accused revealed by a course of behaviour witnessed in most cases by two or more people who are usually two police officers".
The Committee went on to say:
the understandable absence of civilian witnesses makes the offence yet more unsatisfactory".
It added:
It is impossible to make any accurate estimate of the proportion of those convicted for 'sus' who did not in fact intend to commit an arrestable offence. It is indeed questionable if, in many cases, the accused could themselves have been certain as to their precise intentions when arrested.
Exactly similar problems to those will arise in adducing an intent to commit one of the offences contained in clause 8(2).
I accept that the clause does not merely re-enact the "sus" offence. It is not re-enacted in another guise. As the Minister said in response to my earlier intervention, the clause is expressly limited to circumstances in which someone interferes with a vehicle, though it would seem not a bicycle.
However, even in those circumstances, the new offence goes wider than the present "sus" offence, as it would depart from the present requirement that at least one act which would give rise to suspicion must be followed by a further separate act which constitutes the offence. In contrast, under the Bill as presently drafted, trying a single car door would suffice for an offence to be committed. That is not acceptable. I should have hoped that some of the amendments which have not been selected, but which would have dealt with that aspect, would have been preferable.
The Bill also runs counter to the recommendations of the Home Office working party on vagrancy and street offences, which reported in 1976. It consisted of three chief constables, an inspector of constabulary and officials from the Home Office, the DHSS and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That working party was not exactly anti-police or biased against the police. However, it stated in its final report:
One suggestion put to us is that one act by the defendant ought to suffice for conviction in the absence of an explanation. We reject this idea, which it seems to us would provide insufficient safeguards against wrongful convictions.
The working party recommended that the "sus" law should be replaced by an offence limited to a case of a person whose antecedent conduct in a public place suggested an intent to commit an arrestable offence. It proposed that "antecedent conduct" should include at least one suspicious act before and distinct from the act which caused him to be charged with the offence.
The working party's working paper of 1974 stated:
The new offence might then refer to 'a course of suspicious conduct 'or' a repetition of suspicious conduct', or, by exclusion, provide that it should not suffice to establish suspicion that there has been only one instance of such conduct.
Precisely that proposal should have been incorporated in the Bill. Its absence makes clause 8 unacceptable.
Not only was that proposal made by the Home Office working party, with its strong police representation; but Sir David McNee, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, expressed support for the recommendations of the Home Office working party in the memorandum which he presented to the Home Affairs Select Committee during its inquiry into the "sus" law. In that memorandum he listed a number of specific proposals by the Home Office working party which he favoured, including a proposal that
antecedent conduct should include at least one suspicious act before and distinct from the act which caused him to be charged with the offence.
Neither the Home Office working party nor Sir David McNee could be suspected of wishing to make the job of the police more difficult. I cannot see why the Government see fit on this occasion to ignore the advice from such an authoritative and experienced source.
Having made the mistake of answering a debate which has not taken place, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to answer some of my points, and those which will be made by Conservative Members. The possibility that someone who had not formed a dishonest intent could be penalised by the new offence is in many respects the Bill's most objectionable feature. For that reason alone, it should be opposed.
In many ways, just as important is the fact that the Bill makes the new offence subject to the potential penalty of imprisonment. The Minister is proposing that a maximum period of three months can be imposed for what is by any estimate a trivial and minor offence. We must view that


against the background of the current crisis of overcrowding in the prison system, which was referred to by the Home Secretary in a speech to the Leicestershire magistrates on 13 February which will be repeated and quoted time and again. He said:
Of the many problems facing me as Home Secretary, the most pressing and dangerous is the chronic crisis of overcrowding in our prisons which threatens to undermine our criminal justice system and its contribution to maintaining law and order in our society.
9.30 pm
There are about 43,700 men, women and schoolchildren in our prisons today in accommodation designed for 39,000 people, and 18,000 of them are living three to a cell built for one in Victorian times. Very often they are locked up for 23 hours out of every 24.
Already, a few short weeks after the conclusion of the prison officers' dispute, there are five prisoners in Oxford prison who are having to sleep in a library. There are 29 prisoners at Watton detention centre who are having to sleep today in storerooms and classrooms because of the gross overcrowding at those two institutions.
The Home Secretary, to his credit, has repeatedly and very forthrightly pointed to the problems of overcrowding in the prison system and has urged—some would say threatened or at least cajoled—the courts to use imprisonment only when it is absolutely necessary. For example, in his speech to the Conservative central council on 21 March 1980, he pointed out:
It is no use continuing to overburden the staff who have to run the system, too often in antiquated and inadequate buildings, with petty offenders who can be dealt with just as well in other ways".
Those "petty offenders" are precisely the kinds of offenders that we are talking about tonight and with whom we are dealing in the Bill.
I wonder whether the Minister was present on 21 March at the Conservative central council and heard those words of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If he heard them, did he take account of them? Does the Home Secretary know that what he is saying in one breath is being countermanded in another here tonight by the Bill?
The Home Secretary went on to say:
We shall need, and in this the courts have their part to play,"£
one would have thought that the Minister of State had his part, too, but he is not fulfilling it tonight—
to see that the prisons are not allowed to remain cluttered up with trivial and inadequate offenders who are no real threat to anyone, except possibly themselves, but whose presence helps to create the extremely acute pressures which afflict our prisons today and all who work in them".
Those are not my words or the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), or of any of the other radical Members on the Benches behind me. They are the words of the Conservative Home Secretary. I should have thought that he at least would take the time and the trouble not just to make those very encouraging and highly welcome statements but to ensure that his actions backed up what he was saying frequently in his speeches.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend did not say on that occasion that there should be removed from the statute books the ability of magistrates in serious cases—for example, the case of a really persistent offender who has in the end to be sent to prison, perhaps after every other non—custodial alternative had been tried—to take action to

secure the protection of the public. He acknowledged that such cases exist, although perhaps they are rare. But my right hon. Friend said nothing to suggest that that kind of ability should be removed from magistrates' courts.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman ever bothers to read the Home Secretary's speeches. Let me give the hon. and learned Gentleman an example from the Leicestershire speech, where the Home Secretary said that in 1979 there were 9,000 people serving sentences of 18 months or less—not the trivial three months that we are talking about tonight but 18 months or less.
The Home Secretary referred to non-violent and non-dangerous offences, to which again we are referring today, and he asked:
How far can we be sure they invariably deserved imprisonment at all?

Mr. Mayhew: Quite right.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman says "Quite right". The Home Secretary was doubting whether 9,000 non-violent, non-dangerous offenders who were in prison for 18 months or less should even have been put there in the first place. He is saying largely what the report on petty persistent offenders, which the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Department published only last Thursday, said—namely, that petty persistent offenders should be diverted from the criminal justice system and the prison system.

Mr. Mayhew: rose——

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall give way in a moment. I have a few more questions.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman ever read the research findings of his own Department? A moment ago he rose in high dudgeon and talked about the dangerous petty persistent offender. Is it really dangerous to have committed the offence of attempting to interfere with motor vehicles? In a different incarnation, as an Opposition Back Bencher when the Labour Government were in office, the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the disgrace and the scandal of imprisoning petty persistent offenders. Is he saying that because he wears a different hat he now regards them as dangerous?

Mr. Mayhew: rose——

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I have said that I will give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman's occupancy of the Front Bench does not give him any particular kudos. Has he suddenly changed his mind on all those issues? Is he seriously suggesting that the public will be in great danger and under serious threat if we say that these individuals should not be in prison? If that is his view, should he not increase the maximum sentence from three months to 18 months or more?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at last giving way. He might have acknowledged that my right hon. Friend has done more than any Home Secretary in recent years to draw the attention of the public and all concerned to the dangerous degree of overcrowding in the prisons and the need to question whether sentences should always be as long as they are. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that what my right hon. Friend said in Leicestershire was that the question should be asked whether every prisoner in that category serving 18 months needs to spend so long in prison. The hon. Gentleman


suggested that the Home Secretary was saying that none of those people should be in prison at all. To put that gloss upon my right hon. Friend's speech is inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Of course the Home Secretary should be given credit where it is due. I think that I have given it, both today and on other occasions, and always on the record. The right hon. Gentleman has indeed drawn attention to the deplorable and disgraceful state of our prisons far more than any previous Home Secretary of any party. But he has not yet done anything to reduce the prison population, although he has been in office for two years. It is not good enough for him to continue making high-sounding speeches, however much I personally applaud and welcome them, if at the end he does not produce the goods.
The Home Secretary had the opportunity tonight to take out of the penal system one group of offenders who the hon. and learned Gentleman must accept—because by definition it is true—are minor, petty offenders, albeit some of them may happen also to be persistent offenders. They are not a major danger to society, and on no conceivable argument is it necessary to put them into prison. The arguments against imprisonment generally have been deployed elsewhere, not least by the Home Secretary himself. He called for shorter sentences. He pointed out that imprisonment does not deter, reform or rehabilitate and that it is inordinately expensive and often counter-productive for the individual. He went on to say that for those who are not dangerous or violent every effort should be made to find non-custodial alternatives within the community.
I am doing no more tonight than preaching to a specific case in the same terms, and employing the same language as the Home Secretary himself has applied as a generality. All the research and evidence shows that the use of imprisonment and the lengths of sentences bear little or no relation to whether the individual will commit further offences or become a positive, constructive and contributing member of society.
For those reasons, and for the reasons that the Home Secretary has powerfully and eloquently advanced, it has become increasingly accepted that non-custodial sentences should be used as far as possible for all but the most serious and violent offenders. Such alternatives should therfore be used for precisely the kind of individual who will be caught by the new offence created by the Bill if it reaches the statute book.
I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman remembers that the Home Secretary has asked the courts to be particularly careful to ensure that every custodial sentence is as short as possible. If that is the case, surely Parliament also has a responsibility, when enacting legislation which contains a new imprisonable offence, to be absolutely certain that that offence justifies the sanction of imprisonment. Parliament must also be certain that if it justifies that sanction the period of imprisonment should be as short as possible consistent with the safety of the public.
No one could argue seriously that minor offenders whose conduct does not even constitute an attempt to commit theft, let alone theft, should be imprisoned for three months. The Home Secretary has said "We do not

want to imprison minor, petty, non-violent and non-dangerous offenders. We must ask whether it is necessary to imprison them". Yet tonight we are giving the courts the power to imprison people who have not even been convicted of the attempt to steal, still less of the substantive crime itself. Against that background, it should not be automatically assumed that every new offence which is created should necessarily become imprisonable.
In considering whether the new offence created by clause 8 merits imprisonment it is worth recalling that the report "Too Many Prisoners", published in June 1980 by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, said of the present "suspected person" offence:
If the offence is retained, it should be made non-imprisonable: custodial penalties cannot be justified when, in the assessment of the prosecution, the evidence is insufficient to support a charge of theft or attempted theft".
Clause 8 does not simply re-enact the "sus" law in another guise. It is expressly limited to circumstances in which someone interferes with a vehicle. However, in those circumstances the same considerations surely apply. The new offence is being created for use in circumstances where the evidence is insufficient to support a charge of theft, taking and driving away or an attempt to commit one of the more substantive offences. Moreover, the new offence is wider than the "sus" offence in these circumstances as it departs from the present requirement that there must be at least two separate and distinct suspicious acts before the offence can be proved.
I cannot see why, both in Committee and on Report, the Government have been allowed to get this far in their redefinition of the law, to the point where they are making it more likely that more people will be wrongly accused, convicted and imprisoned.
Custodial penalties are available for the substantive offences of theft, taking and driving away and attempting to commit those offences. If the new offence were comparable in its nature with a fully-fledged attempt to steal or drive away a car, or to steal something in it, it could be argued that it would be reasonable for custodial penalties to be available. However, the offence is not comparable with an attempt, as the whole purpose of creating it is to provide an offence which can be invoked when the evidence falls considerably short of attempted theft.
The arguments against the availability of imprisonment in the case of the "suspected person" law are just as applicable to the new offence in clause 8 as they were—both by the report "Too Many Prisoners" and the Home Affairs Select Committee—to the previous offence of being a suspected person.
I hope that the Minister will answer the points that I have raised, because they are important and substantial. I do not think that the Government have made out a case on grounds of either logic or justice. There is no conceivable justification for continuing, almost as an administrative convenience, to imprison people who by any definition are petty, minor, trivial offenders, who are not a danger to the community, who are non-violent offenders, and for whom prison would serve no conceivable purpose. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will force a Division on clause 8 and that my hon. Friends will join him in the Lobby.

Mr. Percy Grieve: It is a long time since I have listened to such a rigmarole of nonsense as informed the speech made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). When we debate matters affecting the criminal law I sometimes wonder whether Opposition Members are not more deeply concerned for the criminal than for his victim.
I am on record, both in the House and outside, as deploring the abolition of the "sus" law. It is one of society's first lines of defence. As far as it goes, clause 8 provides a measure of defence for society. It defends those whose motor cars are constantly at risk in public places. They are at risk of depredations by criminally minded persons. To suggest that clause 8 should be omitted or radically amended in order to do away with the power of justices to imprison is to deprive it of its efficacy in defence of society.
Justices are not compelled to imprison. In the majority of cases it is doubtful whether they would do so. They have other powers at their disposal that are short of imprisonment, such as fines, community service orders and other orders. As in the case of other offences in our courts today, imprisonment will be the last resort.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk spoke of overcrowding in our prisons. Does not he realise that because of the amount of crime our prisons are capable of containing their populations only because the police are unable to bring many criminals to justice? Indeed, the overwhelming preponderance of criminals are not brought to justice. In defence of society more prisons should be built if necessary. If it is possible to keep people out of prison, that should be done. However, ultimately we must retain the sanction of imprisonment, because that is the only sanction open to society if it is to defend itself against crime. It is the ultimate and most important sanction.
I agree that it is important to have short, sharp sentences. Long sentences are necessary only to lock away those who have shown themselves to be persistent enemies of society. Under clause 8 the maximum sentence is a period of three months' imprisonment. By anyone's standard that is not a long sentence. It is deplorable that Opposition Members should argue that we should do away with the protection that our citizens should enjoy and that Parliament should give in respect of property that is likely to be put at danger by layabouts and petty criminals.
It is nonsense to suggest that many people will be wrongly convicted. Under the clause, intent must be proved to the same degree as for any other criminal offence. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the amendment and it will throw out with contumely the suggestion that clause 8 should be omitted.

Mr. Soley: I shall not detain the House for long, but I hope to be more rational in my arguments than the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was in his arguments.
To some extent the Minister spoilt his own case and put the case against the clause. He talked consistently of the high prevalence of crime. That provides the police with a crime-fighting weapon. That is why we are here, and why the 1824 Act was passed originally. There were major social and economic problems leading to vagrancy and other associated problems. We are using the same argument to perpetuate a part of the Bill that is a hangover from the 1824 Act. That is why it should be thrown out.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in England today there is far more lawlessness than there was in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars?

Mr. Soley: That is why I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was being so irrational in his approach. He has failed to think through what he said previously and in his intervention.
The problem is one of parked cars in which youngsters show an interest. The difficulty is that young people are interested in cars. If a youngster goes up to a car, puts one hand on the door handle, looks through the window, moves on to a second car and does the same, then moves back to the first car and repeats his actions, he can be arrested under the provisions of the clause. There is no evidence that he intended to commit an offence. He was doing what a number of youngsters do—looking at the speedometers of the cars concerned. Yet the onus is on him to prove his innocence. The Minister knows that. If he does not believe that to be so, he must demonstrate how a person can prove his innocence with a clause such as this. The weight of evidence means that it is for the person concerned to prove his innocence.

Mr. John Wheeler: Clause 8 is very clear. The obligation will lie upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt to the magistrates that a person is guilty of the offence. It is not a question of the defendant having to prove his innocence.

Mr. Soley: I should love to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must be guided by the words in the Bill, which state:
if it is shown that a person accused of an offence under this section intended that one of those offences should be committed, it is immaterial that it cannot be shown which it was.
If that does not put the onus of proof on the defendant. I do not know what does, because it clearly states "We can get you for one of these three actions."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose——

Mr. Soley: I shall not give way. I mean no disrespect, but there is now a major problem with the time factor.
The Minister quoted the police evidence. The memorandum by the Association of Chief Police Officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was fascinating. It said:
Whilst acknowledging the proposed improvements in the law and the reasons for making these in relation to attempts and of interference with vehicles, it should be made clear that there will be areas where the police in the future would be powerless to act."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 February 1981; c.147.]
The memorandum continues to give the examples cited by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence:). The Minister correctly rejected the arguments of his hon. Friend. It is clear that the police want extended to houses the power that they have to deal with interference with vehicles. Yet the Minister has rejected that argument. If he is to be consistent he must either give in to the police and give it for households as well, or not give it for interference with motor vehicles. That and the constant talk about the high prevalence of crime in this area is a sure sign that we are going down the same road as in 1824.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull got himself muddled about this matter. It is not as though this is a way of dealing with excess crime. Taking and driving away a motor vehicle is a charge in its own right. The more


serious charge is the theft of a motor vehicle with the idea of selling it, and that is a separate charge. There is the problem of theft from a motor vehicle, and that is a separate charge. None of those offences would apply.
I turn now to imprisonment. If the Minister took his responsibilities seriously he would suggest one month's imprisonment. There is no rational reason for three months' imprisonment. It does not protect the public. As my hon. Friend for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, it is not a dangerous offence. It tends to becommitted by petty offenders.
The persistent offender will at most serve only two months' imprisonment for this offence. That does not protect the public either. We cannot pretend to be protecting the public with a sentence of three months' imprisonment which is reduced to two months with remission.
The only way to deal with the matter is to get rid of the clause, because it is contradictory and takes us back to the origins of the 1824 Act. If the Minister is to stick with the clause, the least that he can do is to reduce the sentence to one month's imprisonment or, preferably, to get rid of it altogether.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to comment briefly on the two points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), which echoed points made previously.
The first point relates to the powers of imprisonment. I support those powers. It is important to bear in mind that the powers of imprisonment are merely permissive, and not mandatory. I suggest that three months' imprisonment is a modest period. It would be wrong to take away from magistrates the power to impose prison sentences in a limited number of cases.
This offence is easy to commit. Therefore, it puts many owners of vehicles at risk. Furthermore, the offence bears repetition. Many offenders who are likely to come before the courts will be of bad character and will have previous convictions for similar offences.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that this is a trivial offence. In itself it may be. In isolation, one may be concerned with only a few pounds. But pilfering from vehicles in towns is a scourge. Therefore, the courts should have a residual power—which they will exercise rarely—to impose a prison sentence.
The second point relates to the overall criticism of the clause that was first voiced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). On Second Reading I was critical of the clause, which was then clause 9. I am greatly impressed by the changes that have been made, and I welcome them.
I do not agree that this is an unnecessary clause. Several hon. Members—in particular, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—have said that the offences covered by the clause are much the same as those covered by the offence of attempt. Generally speaking, that will be true. There are obviously a large number of cases in which the two classes of offence will overlap, but it is not always true because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State so aptly said, in order to establish an attempt the offence in respect of which the attempt is alleged must be identified. It is necessary to be specific. Therefore, there

are always a number of instances in which a person is undoubtedly doing a criminal act but it cannot be said with absolute certainty to what the attempt relates. That being so, clause 8 should stand.
Another point made by various Opposition Members is that clause 8, in its present form, is by its very nature oppressive and objectionable. That was put in its most extreme form by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. With respect, I simply do not agree. This offence, like all other criminal offences, has two elements, namely, the prohibited act itself and the prohibited intention. Merely to interfere—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered.
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Attempts Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Bill, as amended (in the Special Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Hogg: I was dealing with the nature of the offence and I pointed out that, in common with all other criminal offences, it has two elements, namely, the prohibited act and the prohibited intention.
It is not sufficient for the prosecution in any case to prove the prohibited act, namely, interference. It must go further than that and prove that the person charged had the prohibited intention. A court will not infer a prohibited intention simply from the trying of handles. There must be more than that.
I have one criticism of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I am afraid that he has misled himself as to the nature and the meaning of this Bill. He suggested that it was for the defendant to prove his innocence. That is simply not so. It is for the prosecution to prove both elements, namely, the interference and the prohibited intention.
As for the choice of three offences as provided for in the Bill, all that means is that the prosecution must prove one of those three. It does not have to identify which of the three prohibited intentions was in the defendant's mind, but the prosecution must prove one of them.
It is quite untrue to say that the defendant must prove his innocence. That is not a proper reading of the Bill and, anxious as I was about what I think was clause 9 when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, I am now content, and I hope that the clause will win the approval of the House.

Mr. Christopher Price: If I felt that this clause would operate along the lines described by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) I would not be as worried about the clause as I am. But I am a Member for South-East London and the truth about "sus" is that it was a London offence. It was used far more widely within the Metropolitan area than in any other area in London and it was, quite frankly, a catch-all offence; it was a holding charge, something with which the police would charge virtually anybody.
In a case with which I was associated, the Confait case, which some hon. Members will remember, two youngsters who were picked up watching television in their own house were registered as having been charged as being suspicious people in a public place on the actual charge sheet before they were charged with murder.
The "sus" offence was used by the police substantially in London as an offence with which they could charge anybody at any time, particularly if they wanted to hold him and charge him with something else later.
My great fear is that by simply replacing that "sus" offence with this clause 8, in the mind of the ordinary copper in South-East London we are providing another holding charge, because this will be tried in front of a magistrate. The hon. Member for Grantham may be right about a proper judicial court with a jury and all the rest, where the two legs of this offence really do have to be proved, but I can assure him that in a London magistrates' court it is not remotely like that. What the magistrates do is either say that the defendant is lying or say that the police are lying, and 99 times out of 100 they decide that the defendant is lying because, in the natural course of events, they cannot bring themselves to say that the police are lying.
If the police say that a defendant has touched a door handle, how can he, particularly if he is a young black defendant in South-East London, prove to a magistrate that he did not interfere with a door handle? The House got rid of "sus" on an all-party basis, in spite of the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) because it was a brutally counter-productive law. It may have been a tool of law enforcement for the police, but it massively exacerbated race relations in the part of London that I represent. In the end an all-party committee, and everybody, even the Home Office, agreed that it had to go.
My great fear that is that the police force will use clause 8 in exactly the same way as it used section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, and the London magistracy will go along with the police and it will grow into a new "sus" law.
I am no lawyer. I do not think that anyone knows how clause 8 will operate if it becomes part of the armoury of law enforcement, but the Government are, tragically, losing an opportunity to get themselves a good reputation for this legislation. They rightly received many congratulations for bringing in the Bill, but it is marred by a clause which might be used in exactly the same oppressive way as its predecessor, the "sus" law, was used. If it is used in that way and there are no independent witnesses to prove a defendant's innocence in the face of the police evidence in a magistrates' court, cynicism among youngsters against whom the clause will be used will be heightened and in the end the law will be brought into greater disrepute. That is why I shall vote against the clause.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked three questions, one of which the Minister has properly and helpfully answered by his amendment, namely, that "public" shall now include "private", or words to that effect.
The second question was whether we needed the clause 8 offence at all. The answer was given by three chiefs of police in evidence before the Special Standing Committee. Sir Philip Knights, the chief of police for the West Midlands said:
Of the 82 offences brought before the courts under section 4, 61 related to tampering with motor vehicles. So from West Midlands experience, there is a case for creating this offence if `sus' is to be removed.
That is an extraordinary proportion. It would be insanity to leave a gap there which the police would not feel able to fill under existing law.
The point was backed up by the chief constables of Merseyside and of the Thames division, who said that about 25 per cent. of the total crime figure was related to theft of or from motor vehicles, or the unlawful taking away of motor vehicles. That is an extraordinarily high proportion of crime. Are we at this stage to take away a weapon in the armoury of law enforcement for dealing with the very problem that faces so many citizens in town and country alike?
The second question is whether imprisonment should be an available sentence for this offence. 'The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made a long speech. He, like many of his hon. Friends, always ignores, as though it does not exist, the deterrent factor of having a sanction of imprisonment for a number of offences. It is not simply a question of saying "Do we want to put these people into prison?" It is also a question of saying "Can we have some sort of sanction that will, at the margin at any rate, deter an offender from committing an offence?"
It is clear that in some circumstances people are deterred from committing criminal offences by the knowledge that they may go to prison. It is not simply a matter of stopping someone trying car door handles; it is stopping someone taking and driving away a motor vehicle, which he may drive while uninsured and in a dangerous manner, and sometimes cause loss of life or loss of limb to ordinary innocent citizens. Within reason, anything that exists within our law to deter would-be offenders from committing offences of this kind is valuable to the whole system. It would be an act of utter stupidity for us to take away the sanction of imprisonment for offences as frequently indulged in as those that we are discussing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On hearing a remark just made from my Front Bench, I can only say that I was intending to be brief. However, the more interruptions that are made, the longer a speech tends to drag out.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Instead of shouting at the Back Benches, the Front Benches should observe advice to be brief and cut their speeches shorter.

Mr. George Cunningham: I did not shout a thing.

Mr. Bennett: I should perhaps start again. The first matter that concerns me is why the motor vehicle should be selected for special attention. It seems illogical to me that the bicycle is not included. The theft of bicycles seems to be one area where crime is growing. I am opposed to the whole clause. It poses the central question of what is the duty of both police and the general public. Is it to try to establish that a crime has occurred or is it to prevent crime in the first place? This is a difficult area. Often, it is the duty of the police to try to detect a crime—in other words, to watch it take place and to try to arrest someone and bring a prosecution. On other occasions, it should be their duty to stop it happening in the first place.
I have talked to policemen over the last fem, months. They are in a dilemma. Whether or not it is true, they tend to feel that they receive far more approval from senior officers for the number of people that they detect committing a crime that produces a prosecution than they do for the number of people that they deter from committing a crime. What is the duty of a member of the public or of a policeman if someone is seen trying car doors? Is it to keep out of sight and to observe what goes


on, in the hope that a prosecution can take place? Or should the policeman make himself known and so deter the criminal?
I suggest that in this fairly minor area the duty of the police is to prevent a crime taking place by making clear to anyone contemplating a crime that the policeman is present and watching. The young person will therefore not commit the crime. That will stop the more serious offence rather than allow a situation in which the policemen waits until an offence has occurred and then attempts to make an arrest and bring about a prosecution. I do not believe that prosecution in these cases has any deterrent effect on other people.
It cannot be argued that by catching one person in 100 the other 99 are deterred. It would be better not to have the offence on the statute book. The police should be encouraged to stop people attempting crime instead of ensnaring and catching someone committing an offence. I hope that the clause will be deleted.

Mr. Mayhew: I should be discourteous if I did not reply to an interesting debate.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that the working party was against the philosophy of the clause. However, paragraph 203 of its report shows that the working party proposed to keep "sus" on the statute book, albeit with qualifications. It is easy to determine whether the offence in clause 8 has been committed, since interference is a more overt and unambiguous act than anything that is required to establish the offence of "sus". That is the distinction. The working party proposed a modern language version of "sus" embracing all types of suspicious or antecedent conduct.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to avoid overcrowding in prisons. It was misleading, no doubt unintentionally, to suggest that the Home Secretary had in

mind that the statute book should be amended so that magistrates should not be able, even in the most persistent or serious cases, to send people to prison when all non-custodial ways had been tried and had failed. We cannot carry our determination to reduce unnecessary overcrowding in prisons to the extent that would, in bad or persistent cases, deprive magistrates of the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) made that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) hit it on the head when he said that there was no compulsion to send people to prison and that that would happen only in rare cases. It is right that the power should remain.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who knows much about these matters, made an uncharacteristic mistake when he said that the burden of proving innocence would lie upon the accused person. That is not right. The prosecution does not have to show which of the three theft-related offences was intended but it must show that there was one. Magistrates will require that burden of proof to be discharged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke of the high proportion of "sus" cases established by the police evidence related to motor offences. That is why the gap must be filled with the offence contained in clause 8. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) thought it better to prevent crime than to put people in prison or secure convictions. He is right. The purpose of the clause is to create the offence of motor interference with the object of preventing the full offence of theft or taking and driving away.
I am confident in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. The arguments adduced against clause 8 do not hold sufficient water to justify a contrary view. Clause 8 is established as an important clause, and it is important that it should remain in the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 155.

Division No. 130]
[10.18 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Howells, Geraint


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, N(H'gey,)
Jones, Dan(Burnley)


Beith, A. J.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Lamond, James


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Cartwright, John
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Cook, Robin F.
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Cowans, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd)
Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)


Deakins, Eric
Morton, George


Dempsey, James
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Douglas, Dick
Prescott, John


Dubs, Alfred
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Race, Reg


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Richardson, Jo


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)
Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)


English, Michael
Sever, John


Evans, John(Newton)
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Snape, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Stoddart, David


George, Bruce
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Golding, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W)


Gourlay, Harry
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)
Welsh, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Whitlock, William


Haynes, Frank
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Homewood, William
Mr. Walter Harrison and Mr. Joseph Dean.


Hooley, Frank





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Costain, Sir Albert


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Denshore


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Brinton, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eyre, Reginald


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Farr, John


Buck, Antony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Budgen, Nick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman





Fraser, Peter(South Angus)
Parris, Matthew


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Gorst, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gow, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Greenway, Harry
Rathbone, Tim


Grieve, Percy
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Peter(Portsm'th N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Hawksley, Warren
Roberts, Wyn(Conway)


Heddle, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Hooson, Tom
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Speed, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs Jill
Stainton, Keith


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Stevens, Martin


Lester, Jim(Beeston)
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Stewart, A(E Renfrewshire)


Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lyell, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Macfarlane, Neil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Madel, David
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Major, John
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Marlow, Tony
Trippier, David


Marten, Neil(Banbury)
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R,


Mather, Carol
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Mellor, David
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, John


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Warren, Kenneth


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Watson, John


Moate, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Morgan, Geraint
Wheeler, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Wilkinson, John


Needham, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Newton, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Normanton, Tom



Onslow, Cranley
Tellers for the Noes:


Osborn, John
Mr. John Cope and Mr. Donald Thompson


Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)



Page, Richard(SW Herts)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 5, line 12, leave out "in a public place".

No. 18, in page 5, line 13, leave out "in such a place".—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 5, line 27. leave out from `to' to 'a' in line 28—[Mr. George Cunningham.]

Question, That the amendment be made,put and negatived.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 36, leave out from '1972' to end of line 39.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Schedule

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 7, leave out lines 12 to 14.

No. 21, in page 7, leave out line 17.

No. 22, in page 7, leave out lines 21 to 27.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 23, in title, line 8, leave out 'in public places'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Criminal Attempts Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Mayhew: This is a substantial Bill. It has brought about a codification and a clarification of the law of attempt. It has repealed the law of "sus". The Government are entitled to considerable credit for repealing the law, which has met with considerable criticism for a long time. We have filled a gap in an important respect with the new offence of motor interference. I believe that the public will be better protected than hitherto. This has been a useful operation.
The Bill was considered in Committee in a useful way. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to Labour Members for the way in which they dealt with the Bill. The Bill has been dealt with in quite a short time and I believe that it will be a useful addition to the statute book. I commend it to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: Much could be said about the Bill on Third Reading, but we shall say less than we should because we are impingeing on time for other business.
Some things need to be said. The first is that the proceedings on the Bill are a vindication of the procedural reforms that have been introduced by the House in the last two years. The proposal to repeal "sus" has been successful because it was recommended almost unanimously by one of our new Select Committees. It was work that the old-style Select Committee could not have done under the rules of the House.
Secondly, the complete reversal of the policy embraced in part 1 of the Bill also resulted from the new procedure of Special Standing Committees, which on this Bill was so successful and worked so well that it was not really necessary for either the Minister or the Opposition to say anything after the consideration of the business in Special Standing Committee. The taking of the evidence was proof in itself of the necessity to reverse the policy that the Home Office had previously adopted.
The Home Office, if I could just have the attention of the Minister of State for a moment, should take on board the fact that after the time of the production of the Law

Commission report there was not that degree of consultation between the Home Office and the Law Commission about the Home Office's desired changes to the Law Commission draft that ought to have taken place. I feel confident that the Minister recognises that that was the case and that he will take steps to ensure that in future, when the Home Office wants—not to put too fine a point on it—to muck about with the careful draft of the Law Commission on a matter like this, it will at least have consultations with the Law Commission in advance. It is noticeable that when Sir Henry Skinner gave evidence to us upstairs he was emphatic that even if one agreed with the policy that the Home Office was trying to pursue the language that it had stumbled upon was language that did not achieve that objective. The substantial changes in the law of attempt as compared with the Home Office's first draft, and as compared with the law of attempt as it stands at the moment, are extremely important. Disputes continue about the law of attempt, whether or not on the words
more than a merely preparatory act",
along with those on the issue of impossibility.
By adopting the words
more than a merely preparatory act
we are finding a clean keel on which new barnacles can attach, rather than clearing away any possibility of barnacles attaching in the light of courts' decisions. All the old issues of stabbing dead corpses, and the like, might raise their heads again, despite the tidy formulae in the Bill.
What was wrong with the offence of "sus" was that it permitted a person to be found guilty on the basis of acts that were too equivocal, that were susceptible to the interpretation of being innocent, and that subjected a person to trial not with the option of jury trial but before stipendiaries, as in London. If the law of "sus" had been properly tried always, it would not have been so bad as it turned out to be. The courts, as much as the law, let us down.
There is no need for the new offence, about which we have spoken adequately. We hope that the House of Lords will have another look at it in Committee. However, let no one imagine that the new law of interference with a motor vehicle detracts from the enormous improvement of getting rid of "sus". The new offence is not the same as "sus". It has some of the disadvantages on a narrow front, but it has been greatly approved in Committee, not least as a result of the new procedure. We can congratulate ourselves on those changes that have been made. On that basis, and with those qualifications, we shall not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 307), dated 2 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 March, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It will be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we take the other prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 359), dated 2 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 March, be annulled.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I must frankly say that I am not too delighted to be moving a matter of some considerable importance in what will be a foreshortened debate. I warn the Minister that if it is his intention to come to the Dispatch Box and to give us his normal, rather smooth, but not tremendously straightforward, appreciation of the reasons that he is putting forward for increasing the charges, that will not be acceptable.
The regulations are clear demonstrations of the attitude of the present Secretary of State and the Minister for Health and of the desire of the Conservatives to destroy the fabric of the National Health Service in any way they can. The Secretary of State thinks that that is not a defensible point of view. Let me tell him that when we look at the picture of change over the last two years, we can see certain clear facts.
The Conservative Party does not have the guts to attack the National Health Service head on, so it ceases to provide the right conditions in which the majority of our population can receive good health care. When the Black report showed clearly that there were enormous discrepancies between one social class and another, the Government made it plain that one of the problems arose because the access to good dental care and to good care in the provision of glasses was also lacking.
Why are we praying against these two inadequate sets of regulations? We may be told that the changes in the amounts are small and that there are so many exemptions that they cannot affect many people. The Government are good at tinkering with exemptions to make it look as if there has been some basic alteration, when they are trying to put off the majority of people from seeking proper health care when it is most needed. We ought to be talking tonight not only about the minor changes but about the political implications.
Before the creation of proper ophthalmic services, it was quite common for working class families—and particularly working class mothers—to buy spectacles over the counter in a chain store. That is very easily forgotten, and I have the impression that the Government would rather like us to return to that sort of practice.
There is at present a concentrated attack on the provision of proper ophthalmic services. One can enter on optician's premises in the High Street and have one's eyes properly tested by a qualified optician, and it is not always certain that spectacles will be prescribed. The optician has the early warning system at his command, so that, where

there is eye disease, he not only refers the patient to a consultant but is able in many instances to give some indication of the sort of problem that a patient is likely to face.
That service would be materially changed if, by constantly moving away from that type of arrangement, and by changing the law, we encouraged large multinational companies to come into this country, making it easy for people to buy spectacles that are not specially prescribed for them.
The Minister may say that that is ridiculous and is something that I have thought up. But there is clear evidence that American multinationals, which are keen to expand their services in in-store department store units, are most anxious to do away with many of the restrictions on the way they operate. They would like to be able to advertise whenever and however they wish. They would like to have a very large throughput of people buying spectacles without any great difficulty in a department store.
Such practices would be entirely contrary to the sort of ophthalmic service that has been built up since the beginning of the National Health Service. The people who would be most damaged by that sort of change would be the ordinary families. People with a very high income never have difficulty in obtaining private health care. It is the people who are outside the exemption ranges but who are on a low income, who consequently cease to try to obtain for themselves proper spectacles or proper dental care.
It is plain that in social classes 4 and 5 the general level of dental care, even now, is not the same as it is among social classes 1 and 2. That has been made evident time and time again.
When the Government talk about a relationship of 75 to 25 between private health care and the National Health Service, they are really talking about lowering the standards. They are determined that the testing of eyes should go back to being a wholly commercial arrangement. They have not been prepared to increase the fee that is given to the opticians for carrying out proper eye tests. The sorts of changes the Government are suggesting will inevitably result in a reduction in use of the service.
The Government should be considering ways of making the average optician's practice very much more balanced in terms of the work that he does. At present, the NHS work is a very large part of the optician's work but represents a very small part of his income. An increase in charges will not encourage people to go to the optician with greater frequency. What is far more likely to happen is that in the future there will be a positive move—we see it already in many newspapers and in women's magazines—towards propaganda for reduced eye care under the National Health Service.
If we return to a situation in which one can go into a department store and buy over the counter by self-selection what is really a very large twin magnifier, we shall not be providing proper health care for our people. As usual under this Government, we shall simply be seeking to create a two-tier system in which those who have the money can obtain proper health care while those who have not are dissuaded in every possible way from seeking help at the moment when it is most desperately needed.
What goes for ophthalmology certainly also goes for dentistry. There is absolutely no indication that the Government are seeking to deal with the provision of


dentistry or to encourage dentists to undertake a greater proportion of National Health Service work. In some regions, such as my own in the North-West, there are considerable gaps in provision and many people have great difficulty when they wish to go to a National Health Service dentist. That will certainly not be changed by the price increases before the House tonight.
We should be asking the House to throw out both sets of regulations. Before the Minister intervenes, I should say that this is not because of some political hang-up about prescription charges. On a day on which he has had the effrontery to announce, almost as an aside, that in future prescription charges are to rise in line with inflation, he can hardly suggest that it is the Opposition who have a hang-up about prescription charges. We oppose the regulations because we believe that they demonstrate an attitude by the Conservatives that is inimical to good health care. The Government are not interested in providing a service free at the point of use when it is most needed.

Mr. John Major: Will the hon. Lady explain to the House how the Government can be damaging the National Health Service and at the same time providing more money for it in real terms?

Mrs. Dunwoody: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, when one considers the amount of money provided in the new allocations, despite the brave words of the Secretary of State today, because of the changes taking place in the population what is really occurring is a drop in the level of provision. If he has not noticed that, I can only say that he has not been looking at what is actually happening.
Both sets of regulations clearly demonstrate the attitude of the Conservatives. They think that if one has a privileged income and is capable of paying for good health care, one should enjoy a high standard of care. If, however, one is outside one or two very small means-tested groups, one should be dissuaded from going for proper care, either to the dentist or to those who would supply one with proper spectacles.
We shall be taking very positive action if we throw out these sets of regulations which lower the standards of care available to the majority of our people.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady, the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said. I do not think that she has distinguished herself this evening. I believe that she will come to regret her speech. Much of what she said was either irrelevant or misinformed.
Of course the Government are concerned to see higher standards—indeed, the highest standards—for dental and optical care in this country. I cannot believe that the dental profession or the optical profession, both of which have very high professional standards, will feel much flattered by what the hon. Lady has said. The Government wish to have a viable, flourishing National Health Service. We are very proud of the National Health Service. I shall explain to the hon. Lady how the Government have restored morale in the National Health Service, and how we have reversed the trend under the previous Government, when waiting lists went up every year. We have now reduced them by more than 111,000. I should also like to explain

how we have increased in real cash terms the amount being spent on the NHS, because the hon. Lady does not seem to be able to do her arithmetic. There has been a 46 per cent. increase since 1979.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose——

Dr. Vaughan: I shall not give way. The hon. Lady did no credit to herself or the Opposition.
I never cease to be amazed at the hyprocrisy of the Labour Party's policy on health charges, prescription charges and dental charges. In Opposition, Labour Members regularly say that they will abolish charges, yet they know that it was they who introduced them, and subsequently reintroduced them. In 1974, the Labour Party manifesto stated clearly that they would abolish all charges. Not only did they continue them, but within a few years of coming into office the had increased dental charges three times.
I have with me a host of speeches made by previous Labour Ministers—I shall not weary the House by going through them—each of which says that the charges must be continued. They run right through from Kenneth Robinson and Richard Crossman to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. He made what he thought was a splendid speech on 3 February 1976 in which he said that there was no question of removing charges, and that they were necessary for the running of the Health Service.
On 21 July 1969, when charges were going up, Richard Crossman said:
This is an increase in charge which is an adjustment of charge to cost".—[Official Report, 21 July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1393.]
That is what we are doing. We are increasing the charges to fit in with the increassed cost of the Service. As we announced in the public expenditure White Paper, if necessary these will now be increased annually as the costs vary within the Service.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Vaughan: No, because I do not have much time. Before we have any more speeches of the kind to which we have just listened, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the changes which the regulations are designed to make.
The changes in the Scottish regulations are identical to those for England and Wales. The main reason for these two sets of regulations is to provide for increases in charges for dental treatment and dentures, and for spectacle lenses, to take effect from 1 April. This is the first increase in charges for ophthalmic services introduced by this Government. One other change effective from 1 April is the modification of the age exemptions from dental and optical charges.
Opposition Members will remember that when we debated the Health Services Act last year, there was a good deal of discussion about this. The dental profession said that we should alter the ages to include people at school and full-time students under the age of 19. That we are doing. Because of that Act, these regulations are necessary to provide for two small consequential amendments.
The Government's general policy on Health Service charges has always been that in suitable cases, and where the user can afford it, he should bear a reasonable amount of the cost of the Service. Moreover, we take the view that charges should keep pace with the rising costs of providing


these services. That was spelt out in the recent White Paper on public expenditure. In deciding to increase charges in order to maintain and develop services I am sure that we have made the right choice.
The hon. Member for Crewe did not refer to any of the details. Of course, we recognise that there are groups of people who cannot afford to pay these charges. It is very much part of Conservative policy and philosophy that where people are unable to meet the charges there should be exemptions. I refer, for example, to the case of children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I note that those cries came from this side of the House.
I turn to the subject of dental charges. These regulations increase the maximum cost of a routine course of treatment from £8 to £9. A full set of resin dentures will go up from £30 to £33 and a crown will go up from £18 to £20. By any standard, those increases are modest and reflect merely the rising cost of providing general dental services. The most important charge for the majority of patients who pay for their dental treatment is the maximum for an ordinary course of treatment. The new charge for this has deliberately been kept as low as possible.
As hon. Members may know, more than 60 per cent. of all courses of dental treatment are provided free of charge I should remind hon. Members that, for example, a check-up is free for everyone. In addition, the figure of £9 for routine treatment is not a basic but a maximum charge. Many patients pay less. In 1981–82 dental charges are expected to raise an additional £24 million over the revenue yield in 1980–81. The total revenue from dental charges will be about 25 per cent. of the gross costs of the general dental service. At present that is £464 million. Patients contribute £116 million.
I turn to the subject of optical charges. These increases represent the first changes since 1977. We have not increased the charge for the cheapest ordinary lens, which will remain at £2·90. There has been only a small increase in the other charge for single-vision lenses. The majority of National Health Service patients—over three-quarters of them—have single-vision lenses. Together with the most popular NHS frame, a complete pair of glasses with single-vision lenses will still cost the patient less than £10.
The charges for bifocal lenses have been increased by a slightly greater amount than those for the ordinary single-vision lenses, with the price of the most expensive lens increasing from £6·15 to £8·30. However, I remind the House that the majority of bifocal wearers—if they did not have bifocal lenses—would have to have two pairs of ordinary single-vision spectacles. As I said, there are arrangements for exemption from charges for children and for help with the charges for those on low incomes.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Dr. Vaughan: I shall not give way, as this is a short debate. The sight test is still free to patients, so nobody who thinks that he needs glasses should be deterred from consulting an optician on the ground of cost.
The increases in charges will yield about £4·5 million. The total revenue from charges should represent about 29 per cent. of the gross costs of the general ophthalmic services. At present, the gross cost is just over £128 million and the charges yield about £38 million.
I have referred to the changes in the age exemptions from both dental and optical charges. The main changes, which were contained in the Health Services Act 1980,

lower the upper age limit for free dental treatment from 21 to 18. They allow free dentures to all full-time students under the age of 19 and they extend free glasses, in the children's range, to all full-time students until they reach the age of 19. These changes were fully debated before the Act received Royal Assent in August 1980.
In conclusion, we believe that it is right to keep the charges in line with the cost of providing the services. I have no apology to make for the modest increases that we have been discussing.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I differ from the hon. Gentleman in all that he said. We do not have time to debate the whole of his case, but I am willing to discuss his facts at any time. For example, he said that the Labour Party first introduced the Health Service charges. They were first introduced by the late lain Macleod, in the Conservative Government of 1951, when the Labour Party voted against them solidly and the late Hilary Marquand made a pledge to abolish them at that time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend forgets Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Pavitt: I wish to concentrate entirely upon the dental section of these disastrous regulations. The Minister did not say that the whole of the dental profession was opposed to the charges and the increases.

Mr. Lewis: I was here and I know. It was Mr. Gaitskell, ably supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins—who was then angling for position—who introduced the charges, and the Social Democrats are now supporting Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend is partly correct, but not wholly. He is correct in saying that three senior Ministers resigned over the empowering to charge carried out by Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, but we lost the Government before it became operative. The late Mr. Iain Macleod put the Act into operation. I do not want to go over the history.
The consequence of the regulations will be that the charges will mean the deferment of treatment, an increase in oral disease, much more treatment and far less prevention. The taxpayer is already paying £300 million for his dental services. As a result of the increases 18 months ago already there are whole areas of the country where NHS dental treatment is not available. There are items in respect of which the dentist will not give treatment under the NHS but will charge for it. The dentist has the option either to give NHS treatment or to charge for each of his patients.
One of the consequences has been the report that the hon. Gentleman received from the citizens advice bureaux, giving facts and figures. What reply has he sent? What reply has he sent to a similar report that he has received from the National Association of Community Health Councils, showing the falling availability of NHS treatment?
The Minister explained that regulations mean a reduction from the present situation of free treatment up to 21 years. I congratulate the British Dental Association on the negotiations that it had with the hon. Gentleman. The original proposal was to reduce the age to 16. At least it has now been raised to 18 years. Nevertheless, that still means that many people from the age of 19 onwards who should receive treatment will not get it.
My main concern is about the raising of the charge from £54 to £60. I sometimes wonder whether the Government have any regard for the elderly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the total number of treatments has increased each year, but if he makes an analysis of where they have increased and where they have decreased he will find that the charges have affected the elderly more than any other section of the community. Current teaching of dental students demands that as the mouth shrinks after the age of 60 fresh dentures should be fitted, but because dentists are refusing to treat under the NHS and are charging privately it means that a series of treatments and particularly a change for dentures for the elderly are not being taken up. The shame of a person whose dentures do not fit means loneliness for the elderly. He does not go out, because he is frightened that his teeth may fall out at the Derby and Joan club and he is frightened of the shame that he will feel because of that. He is aware of speech impediment caused by ill-fitting false teeth.
The order is a disaster for dental treatment for the elderly. The Government's policy of returning to the market place and the power of the purse affects dental care more than the other section of the National Health Service with which they have been dealing. The basic concept of the NHS that all treatment should be given on clinical need and not on the power of the purse has been eroded. That has been eroded in the hospital service, but not so much in the general dental service. Despite the increase to 1,200 beds in the private sector in London, compared with the impact on the dental services, it is not on the same proportion.
Practically every member of the community at some time or other calls on the dental services. But there is now the possibility of there being no NHS dental practice available in a few years, because it has been declining at a fantastic rate in the past two or three years. All general dental practitioner services will be for payment by the patient. The tragedy is that in 20 years we could eradicate diseases that affect the mouth. Yet, in order to save £24 million today, we shall give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a much larger burden in 10 years.
The Government have a deplorable record. They say that they are thinking of an improved and enhanced NHS, but while we differentiate between first-class citizens who pay for and receive treatment and second-class citizens to whom treatment is denied because they cannot afford it, the Government cannot claim to have any understanding or compassion, or to know what the National Health Service is about.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In debates such as this, one knows, almost as soon as he gets to his feet, whether the Minister has a good or a bad case for the regulations. When the Minister abuses the Opposition and claims as the excuse for increasing charges that the Labour Government introduced the enabling legislation, one has the feeling that he is somewhat shamefaced about the charges that he is proposing. The Minister claimed that the increased charges, in gross terms, were modest.
I suggest that the Minister might almost have an arguable case if these were the only charges being increased by the Government, but since they came to office they have increased prescription charges, and in

every aspect of social policy they have increased charges across the board. One might imagine that the Government felt that earnings were increasing at such a fantastic rate that people could afford to meet the increased charges because the general costs that they had to meet were taken care of.
The Minister cannot take these regulations in isolation from what is happening generally. He cannot brush aside as not worth mentioning the fact that rents, rates, bus fares, gas prices, and so on, are being forced up. All these factors affect pensioners.

Mr. James Lamond: National insurance contributions are going up.

Mr. Hughes: National insurance contributions are going up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) reminds me. All these factors add up to a considerable sacrifice being made by ordinary people. The Minister knows that. Remissions of charges do not excuse these increases.
There are 2½ million people out of work. Those people depend on social security or unemployment benefit. Many may not be receiving benefit at all because of the regulations.
The Government are mean and petty. They claim to have paid pensioners 1 per cent. too much last year, and they will not give them the proper increase this year. The Government are saying "We gave a single pensioner 25p a week too much and we gave married pensioners 40p a week too much." It is sheer hypocrisy to say that they are compassionate because they are exempting certain people from these increases. I cannot understand how the Minister can claim that there is an air of hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition in seeking to reject these increases. The fact that charges were increased by Hugh Gaitskell and Dick Crossman does not make these increases right. If the Minister had a sound argument he would defend these increases on their merits, and not make remarks about what happened in the past.
The Minister said that these charges would go up annually, as costs rose, but he has not told us this evening how much they will go up, and I suspect that next year he will bring forward regulations providing for much bigger increases than this, because the Government are in total disarray in terms of their social and economic policy.
I shall certainly vote against the regulations. I have no hesitation in saying that the increased charges that they provide for will be a burden on poor people in our society. Many people feel that they cannot afford proper optical treatment or dental treatment. It may be that to the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, £8, £9, £20, and so on, are minimal sums, to be considered as trifles. he has no idea how ordinary people are living and struggling to survive in the kind of climate and disorder that he and his Government are creating.
I shall certainly oppose them with all the energy at my command.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I believe that I am right in saying that I am one of the two hon. Members present—my right hon. Friend Leader of the Opposition is the other—who were here when the Bill was first introduced and I believe that we are the only two now who voted against the charges. I well recollect—and I agree that it is regrettable that it was the Labour Party that did it—that then the Treasury, always the adviser of all


Governments and wanting to get its hands on this money, said that it was temporary. It is nothing to smile about, because we are taxing the sick; they are being taxed by well-heeled people sitting in this place—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself and speaking for all of us, and the poor, the sick and the infirm. Believe me, there is no man or woman in Britain that I know of who goes to the dentist to have all his teeth pulled out because he likes to do so. In fact, I do not know of anybody who gets spectacles because he likes doing it. They go because they are medically advised to do it and they have to do it.
If a man drops down dead we do not ask for the medical fees to be paid or where the money is to come from. If a person is sick outside in the street, do we ask him to pay for medical attention?
I heard the Minister say that of of course the Government are in favour of the Health Service. What a load of tripe. They voted against both the Second and Third Reading and the introduction of the Bill. Hon. Members know what that means. They are against the principle of the Bill. They were against the Second Reading and the Third Reading and they have never been in favour of a free Health Service.
In The International Year of Disabled People the Government are shedding crocodile tears. Let us see to it that when a person is sick or disabled we give him the best treatment we can and do not worry about the cost. There are plenty of other ways of finding the money.
The right hon. Member may smile, but I say that if he is a Christian gentleman, if he really believes that we should help the sick and the disabled, we should not charge for treatment of this sort. I do not know of any man or woman who would have his or her teeth all drawn out or who would have spectacles because it was cheap.
This is the wickedest thing that any Government have done. I say it in 1981 as I said it in 1951. It was wrong of Mr. Gaitskell, ably supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins. He was well up in front, that man who says he is in favour of an incomes policy—an incomes policy for others but not for himself. If the Government want some money, they should tax these people. A quarter of a million pounds—there is a nice little bit that would help; let the Government stop some of that.
It is a shocking business and I think all those on the Government Front Bench ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not intend to make a speech. I hoped that the Minister would allow me to make a brief intervention to press him on the question of exemptions. His whole case rested on the argument that people in need were entitled to exemptions. I suggest to him that that does not happen.
A substantial number of people are put off from applying to use the services because they believe that it will cost them money, even though they are entitled to exemptions. What is the Minister doing to make sure that those people particularly those who have recently come on to benefit because they are unemployed, disabled or sick, are aware of the exemptions to which they are entitled?
Is the Minister certain that all who are entitled to exemptions are benefiting from them at the point when they apply for the service? Is he certain that the people who operate the service are aware of the entitlement to

exemption? The impression I have been given from several constituents is that when they have been to the dentist or optician they have not been given accurate information by the dentist or optician, or by the receptionist, as to their entitlement, or they have been told to ask somewhere else. Some people do not pursue that and so they do not get the exemption to which they are entitled.
Is the Minister satisfied that everyone who should be getting an exemption is getting one? Has the number of people classified as exempt changed over the past 12 months in view of the changing economic circumstances? Will the Minster assure the House that his Department will run a campaign to ensure that all who are entitled gel an exemption?
How much does it cost to administer the exemption arrangements? The last time I talked to the people in Stockport about it they said that it was very costly to check whether people were entitled to exemption. How far is that process necessary? Would a lot of money be saved by going to the "free" principle, rather than having a system in which some people are entitled to benefit and some are not?

Dr. Vaughan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has raised a very important point to which we have given a good deal of attention. A revised version of last year's award-winning leaflet on dental treatment is available through the post offices. There is a long list of other organisations and offices through which it is available. I will look into the way in which information is provided to people.
As to any possible deterrent effect, the number of dental treatments has gone up steadily, from 20 million in 1970 to 30 million in the last year. There has been no sign of any falling off in the amount of dental care.

Mr. Bennett: I am glad that the leaflet won an award, but I wonder how far it achieves the desired results, Some of my constituents find it extremely difficult to read anything, let alone a leaflet. Very often they are the people who most need the benefit.
It is important that it should be understood in popular folklore what people are entitled to. Many of my constituents believe the popular folklore that it is expensive to go to the optician or the dentist. That is what the Minister must get over if he is to be sure that all the people in need get the service that they should have.

Question put:—

The House divided, Ayes 77, Noes 136.

Division No. 131]
[11.18 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
English, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Flannery, Martin


Crawshaw, Richard
Foster, Derek


Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Golding, John


Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)


Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Dempsey, James
Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)


Dixon, Donald
Home Robertson, John






Homewood, William
Prescott, John


Hooley, Frank
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Howells, Geraint
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Lamond, James
Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)
Sever, John


Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McElhone, Frank
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen(Penistone)
Stoddart, David


McKelvey, William
Tinn, James


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


Maxton, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)


Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton


Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brinton, Tim
Farr, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Peter(South Angus)


Budgen, Nick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Grieve, Percy


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter(Portsm'th N)


Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)
Hawkins, Paul


Clegg, SirWalter
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, John
Heddle, John


Costain, Sir Albert
Henderson, Barry




Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Rathbone, Tim


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Renton, Tim


Hooson, Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Roberts, Wyn(Conway)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lester, Jim(Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Ian(Havant &amp; W'loo)
Speller, Tony


Lyell, Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Madel, David
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marlow, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Mather, Carol
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trippier, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Waddington, David


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, John


Morgan, Geraint
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Needham, Richard
Watson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Tony
Wheeler, John


Normanton, Tom
Wickenden, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Osborn, John
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Page, Richard(SW Herts)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Parris, Matthew



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Pollock, Alexander
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


Proctor, K. Harvey

Question accordingly negatived.

Rate Support Grant (Rugby)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: My main purpose in this short Adjournment debate is to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to the severe financial and political anomalies in the new system of distributing rate support grant, particularly as it affects district councils, and to ask him to take action to correct a series of unforeseen but penal injustices.
No one—least of all myself—doubts the gross inefficiencies in measuring need and resources under the old system, when high spenders were perpetually rewarded and encouraged in their profligacy while the quality of local services and the wishes of their paymasters—the ratepayers—were consistently ignored.
Here it may be appropriate to mention the Rugby borough council. Rugby is a Conservative-controlled authority, which prides itself, with considerable justification, on its good housekeeping. For example, since reorganisation in 1974–75, the total rate increase has amounted to 36·12 per cent. That is well under the rate of inflation, and must be one of the lowest levels of increase anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps the best way to highlight the Rugby borough council's performance is to compare it with a neighbouring local authority—the Nuneaton borough council. Nuneaton has a population of about 110,000, while Rugby's population is 85,000. Rugby has 600 employees, and has reduced its staff by over 40 during the past 12 months. Nuneaton has 1,200 employees, and has made no reductions. Nuneaton's total rate increase since 1974–75 in almost 100 per cent.—about three times the Rugby figure. Rugby has consistently tried to work within the guidelines established by various Governments, but it is now being penalised for its pains, while its free-spending neighbour gets a metaphorical and financial pat on the back.
I blow my district council's trumpet not merely because I was once deputy leader. My constituency, with its excellent labour relations and highly skilled work force, allied to its geographical situation, is, to quote the borough council's slogan:
In the middle, where it matters".
The strength of its work force has never been seen to better advantage than today. I mention that specifically because of the admirable order received by the GEC of about £600 million, the largest export order ever—a great tribute to Rugby. The new industrial estates under construction in Rugby, together with its stable rate, make my constituency very attractive to business. However, the debate is about rates and not excellence, so I shall end the commercial and turn to the matter in hand.
The need for an improved system for distributing grant aid from the Government to local authorities has been acknowledged for many years. I had hopes that the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980 would be an improvement, but the new system has produced results completely contrary to what I and many other hon. Members anticipated, and certainly contrary to the objectives of the system. I appreciate that

there may be teething problems in the early stages of any system, but the problems affecting this system are more than transitional. They are not merely teething troubles for district councils. Block grant has become a benevolent despot. In theory, the system appears fine; in practice, it has led to a series of unforeseen and heavy penalties for district councils. I wish to champion their cause. It is no accident that this is the second of such debates in the past two or three weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) introduced a debate concerning his district council in the Vale of White Horse.
I apologise for the inevitable technicalities of the debate. I am told that only three people in the country understand the block grant: one has died, one has gone mad, and the third lives in Marsham Street. It was with trepidation that I attempted to follow the Department of Environment report on local government finance. However, while the mechanisms may be obscure, the consequences for the ratepayers of Rugby are only too obvious. I do not wish to be parochial, but the difficulties that beset my constituency and borough council are reflected among district councils generally.
First, I am concerned about the new provisions for the cost of collecting the rate. The amendment to the penny rate product rules dictates that the district council must now shoulder all the costs of the collection service. Since my district council provides the staff for the service, in the interests of economy and efficiency it should also have some of the responsibility, but it is difficult to justify to ratepayers why the district rate has increased by 11 per cent. or 1½p when there has been no change in services. and the precepting county council gets its rate income free of charge. Surely that is less of a responsibility and more of a burden.
I accept that ratepayers have to pay the cost of collection whichever authority collects, but why should the costs lie where they fall when it is so grossly unfair? Furthermore, should there be a change in the political control of the Warwickshire county council following the elections in May, it is quite possible that the new council, if it is Labour-controlled, will levy a supplementary precept. That would mean that the five district councils in Warwickshire would be involved in finding an additional £100,000. That is £100,000 that has not been budgeted for but that they will be obliged by law to collect.
Secondly, I turn to local contributions to rate and disability rebates, which are now to be paid for directly by the district council. These are established by statute on the basis of income allowances and the size of the rate bill. As the county council controls about 90 per cent. of the total rate bill by virtue of having the largest precept, we at district level face the task of having to extract from our ratepayers not a local contribution but a burden of subsidy towards a service over which we have negligible control and where we can be held financially responsible for the actions of another authority. That, effectively, is taxation without representation.
The amounts involved are not small. For my local authority, after Government grant of about 90 per cent., the cost to be met in 1981–82 is estimated to be about £67,000—the equivalent of a halfpenny rate. I find it remarkable that, while charity relief under the provisions of section 40 of the General Rate Act 1967 is to be treated as a loss on collection and shared between the two


authorities in proportion to their share of the total rate income, that will not apply to rebate, and the cost remains with the district council alone.
I submit that rate collection at district level is fast becoming a Pilgrim's Progress, with no salvation in sight. Does the system seem any simpler or more equitable than the one that it replaced? My ratepayers and I, and, I suspect, many other ratepayers throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, doubt it.
Thirdly, the grant-related expenditure assessment calculations—or GREs as they are fondly known to the rate buffs in the House—are in theory a vast improvement on the old system, but they are causing far greater problems than could be attributed to the teething troubles of any new system. The means of assessing needs and measuring resources under the previous system was arbitrary and complex, and because of its links with spending it penalised economy-minded local authorities. My district council and county council fall very much into that category. On the other hand, the new block grant system was announced as a radical, fair and, above all, understandable system, which attempted to break the link with spending by setting up an objective assessment for needs related to resources.
I and many others in the House welcomed the new proposals and accepted that there would be some difficulties associated with changes in grant distribution. However, the practical operation of the new system causes me a great deal of concern. For a start, perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why the assessment of GREs per head of population in non-metropolitan district councils varies nationally by about 232 per cent., from about £24 in mid-Bedfordshire to £80 in Portsmouth. Within my own county of Warwickshire the variation is over 60 per cent.—from £30 to £49. This wide variation causes me to question the equity of a system that can produce such wide differentials.
My initial reaction to the data set out in appendices 1 to 3 of annex J of the report is that the original objective of having a simpler, more open and fairer system is completely negated, because the method of assessment requires no fewer than 19 pages of the report and a 30 page document from the Department. Even the district council requires two full pages of computer calculations to get reasonably close to the figures. That is some simplicity!
For an illustration, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to one area of grant-related expenditure that is particularly crucial to district councils. I refer to the housing revenue account. The assessment of GREs rightly does not seek to decide how a local authority chooses to split the housing costs between tenants and ratepayers. Instead, it takes average regional rents as a yardstick and calculates a national housing revenue account on that basis. What has happened in practice?
In Rugby, for example, it has been the policy of the district council to fix rents at a level necessary to balance the housing budget with only statutory contributions from the rate fund. However, because the GREs are calculated on a West Midlands regional rent level, in Rugby we have lost about £309,000. That is a substantial sum for a relatively small district council. That loss has been made although my district council has always operated a wholly realistic and economic rent policy. That policy has been in operation since 1974. It is completely in accordance

with Conservative principles and has kept our rents lower than the national average, not through subsidy but purely through good housekeeping. Rugby borough council is an authority that prides itself on its good housekeeping.
Rugby has therefore been penalised, although we have made no discretionary contributions to the housing revenue account, although we have kept rents at a reasonable level by avoiding any extravagant expenditure and have kept our rates increase for the coming financial year to only one-third more than that set in 1974–75, despite a wage and salary inflation of about 200 per cent. during that period. That is a measure of Rugby's success.
When I consider other authorities in Warwickshire that have subsidised their rents with large rate fund contributions, I find that the GRE assessment has rewarded them for what I and many other Conservatives regard as sheer local government malpractice. The national housing revenue account formula seems to assume that simply because our rents are low we are automatically the culprits of some form of subsidy. A glance at our rate record instantly shows that that is untrue.
The irony of the whole system is that if Rugby had been included in the East Midlands, as it often is, our rents would be higher than the regional average, and no deduction would have been made from the rent-related assessment. The laws of arithmetic must conform to the artificialities of geography, whilst the pure laws of economics have been thrown to one side. Surely it was not the intention of block grant to produce such an obvious anomaly.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider those three points. It comes hard to a district council such as mine, which has struggled against unjust grant distribution systems, to find that by default it is the victim of a new system administered by its political friends. To my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, this is a cry for help and understanding, and one that I hope will receive my hon. Friend's consideration and, more to the point, his help.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) on the clear and cogent way in which he has put his case before the House this evening. It is not surprising that such a diligent Member should be acting on behalf of his constituents, at this late hour of the night, here in the middle where it counts. If I am not able to deal with all the matters that he has raised, I assure him that I shall write to him on the matters for which time may not permit an answer.
I preface my remarks by congratulating the borough council of Rugby on the steps which it is taking to reduce its expenditure in the present climate. My hon. Friend referred to staff reductions made by the council during the course of the last year. This is a good start and I hope that the trend will continue.
I also understand that the council is budgeting to spend in the coming year at slightly below the current expenditure target which was sent to it in January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My colleagues and I are very well aware of the difficult decisions which are always involved in a policy of that kind. There is criticism in the council chamber. There is criticism in the local press. It takes courage and persistence to follow through such policies, so I warmly welcome the borough council's response to our calls for economy. It is indeed, as my hon.


Friend said, a good housekeeper. I hope, therefore, that it will receive the support from the ratepayers and voters of the borough that it deserves, and in whose interest its Member is raising this matter here tonight.
However, my hon. Friend has called for this debate in order to focus on the block grant entitlement of the Rugby borough council, among other things, and that is the topic to which the main burden of his remarks was directed. I appreciate that the people of Rugby feel that they have done badly in this year's RSG settlement, and with an estimated grant loss for the borough equivalent to a 3·8p rate, I can well understand its point of view. But I must put that loss into perspective. In the first year of a new set of grant arrangements, there is inevitably a certain amount of readjustment of the way grant is allocated. But in the case of Warwickshire one of those adjustments has been a simple shift of grant between the district councils and the county council.
Up till 1979–80 the whole of the needs element allocated to shire areas was paid to the county councils. It is only in the last two years that the Government have reallocated some of the money to the districts within each county. For the district councils this has been a windfall. Many have actually been able to cut their rates. In the case of Rugby, its grant gain was worth virtually £1 million, and the borough council was able to cut its local rate by a fifth as a result. But it has always been evident that the way in which the grant has been split was not fully satisfactory, and would have to be looked at again before very long. In the event, it has fallen to this Government to carry out the necessary review, to introduce a proper assessment of spending needs, and to correct at least some of the anomalies, although my hon. Friend feels that it has credited others.
In Warwickshire, one of the effects of this has been to transfer some of that grant windfall back to the county council. Indeed, taken together with various other realignments in this year's settlement, Warwickshire county council has received a very substantial increase in its rate support grant, equivalent to a rate of 5·2p in the pound. So far as the ratepayers of Rugby are concerned, it is of couse, the combined effect of the grant settlement on both tiers of local government which matters, since they pay rates to both county and borough.
My hon. Friend referred to Nuneaton as an example of an authority which appears to be rewarded by block grant for its "extravagant" housing expenditure in the past. Perhaps I might be allowed to tell the House that the average level of rents in Nuneaton during 1980–81 was £7·91 a week—which is actually above the regional average. Block grant assumes no more than that authorities below the average are in a position to adopt the course now open to them of increasing their rents to the average level—which, by definition, is already exceeded by half the authorities in the region.
My hon. Friend referred to the change in the rate product rules, under which county councils will no longer contribute towards the districts' expenses in collecting their rate income. This change has been introduced in order to place the responsibility for the economical management of rate collection firmly with the rating authority which collects the rates. Generally speaking, it is it alone which can influence and regulate how efficiently and cheaply the rates are collected. I accept that there may be times when the county authorities will impose additional burdens on the rating authority by levying a

supplementary rate part way through the year. This possibility was raised in our discussions with the local authority associations, and we have left open the question of what terms the county and district councils might agree upon in those circumstances.
I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. If the traditional relationship between district and county is abused, and if there are onerous and unexpected transfers for collection on to the district authorities—the rate-collection authorities—I think that we would have to reconsider this matter in consultation with the district associations.
Similar arguments apply to the residual cost of rate and disability rebates. In future, the local contribution will count as the expenditure of the rating authority and will qualify for block grant. Again, only the rating authority has discretion to vary the rebate scheme which is adopted in its area by granting an enhanced level of rebates to its own ratepayers. I accept that these changes will add to the borough's own local rate. I assure my hon. Friend that this has been taken into account in the block grant and that in both cases there should also be offsetting savings to the county rate.
This brings me to the question of assessing spending needs—the grant-related expenditures. The House is very familiar now with the GREs. Yet I fear that there is still misunderstanding in some quarters that they somehow represent a target, or a Department of the Environment view of what every council ought to be spending. Yet we have repeatedly emphasised that the GREs are simply a reference point for distributing grant and do not: detract from authorities' freedom to take their own decisions about both the total and the composition of their spending. My hon. Friend criticised the new grant arrangements for being complex, and I must agree. I do not think that I am one of the three persons to whom he referred. I can only say that it seemed to me that the number of factors listed in annex J of the rate support grant report was important evidence of our attempts to be as fair as possible to all types of authority. Fairness, inevitably but regrettably, involves a degree of complexity.
What we have tried to do is to put our assessment of districts' spending need for grant purposes on to a proper objective basis for the first time, in place of the crude and temporary arrangements which we inherited. Of course, for shire districts housing is a key component of their spending, and we have had to devise a way of representing housing in the GREs. My hon. Friend has criticised the results that we have obtained. I realise, too, that Rugby and a number of other housing authorities have strongly objected that it is quite unrealistic to present them with a GRE assessment which assumes a surplus on their housing accounts and to penalise them if they do not achieve it. I accept that the technicalities are not easy to follow, but I hope that my hon. Friend for his part will accept that the reasoning underlying this indicator takes account of the position in which authorities now find themselves.
Perhaps I might remind the House that the GRE housing component E7 is intended to reflect a notional position on an authority's housing revenue account—be it deficit or surplus—on two critical assumptions: first, that it is selling council houses, and, secondly, that it is charging the average rents for the region. In Rugby's case, this indeed produces a negative component, reflecting the possibility of a surplus. The rent figures show that in


1980–81 the average weekly rent of a council house in the borough was £7.34. The average for the West Midlands as a whole was £7.81.
I accept that many factors go to influence an authority's rent levels, and I would not wish to dispute that Rugby's management of its housing stock has been commendably economical and that this has contributed to its lower-than-average rents. I would only say that, in our view, it would have been wrong to have given more grant to some authorities just because they happen to have lower rents. For grant purposes we needed a standard assumption. That is why we introduced the regional average rent into the formula. It is not a matter of penalising certain authorities. The fact is that authorities now have enlarged discretion to create credit balances on their housing accounts, and the GREs recognise this. Perhaps, however, I should underline once again that, with GREs, what we are talking about is a notional assumption which is intended to secure a fair distribution of grant.
Rugby, and other councils like it, remain entirely free to settle their own levels of rents and rates, and the balance between them, according to their own local circumstances.
Overall, the ratepayers in my hon. Friend's constituency should therefore suffer no disadvantage. On the contrary, in districts where rating is run especially economically, the ratepayers should actually benefit.
My hon. Friend asked for my understanding and help. Naturally, I can give no firm assurances now about how the rate support grant for 1982–83 will come out. But we have already spoken with the local authority associations in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance

about some of the aspects which we shall want to take a further look at with them during the course of this year. I have noted the points which my hon. Friend has made, particularly about the indicator of housing expenditure, and we shall be pleased to consider any other constructive proposals which his authority may care to suggest.
I must tell my hon. Friend and his constituents, that they have actually fared extremely well in the first year of a new and complicated system of block grant. I fully understand that the ratepayers in Rugby may feel differently, but in the coming year they will be faced with a rate increase of a little over 6 per cent. I am sure that this result will be warmly welcomed by the local electorate. Not that my colleagues and I would claim that this is an easy time for local government, or for anyone entrusted with the responsibility of spending public money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that clear to local authorities on a good many occasions. The reduced amount of money available from the Exchequer to local government as a whole is only one aspect of this. But we believe that in the block grant, the Government have been able to take a considerable step forward towards greater fairness in the way those funds are distributed.
I urge councillors in every area to stick to their task of seeking efficiency and economy. There are many signs that voters—particularly in Conservative areas such as that so ably represented by my hon. Friend—are ready to recognise and to support those authorities, such as the authority in Rugby, which respond in an enlightened manner to the challenge of these difficult economic times.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o' clock.